Full text of "Patrology : the lives and works of the fathers of the church"

See other formats

PATROLOGY

O.BARDENHEWER

Coll. Chriati

BIBL THEO

PATROLOGY

THE LIVES AND WORKS OF THE
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.

PATROLOGY

THE LIVES AND WORKS OF THE
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

, b

OTTO BARDENHEWER, D. D., PH. D.

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH

TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND EDITION

THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D. D.

PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

WITH THE APPROBATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THEIR LORDSHIPS THE

ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS OF COVINGTON, FREIBURG, MILWAUKEE,

OGDENSBURG, ST. LOUIS, SIOUX FALLS AND SPRINGFIELD

Coll. CtrUti Regie

BIBL. THEOL.
TORONT.

FREIBURG IM BREISGAU AND ST. LOUIS, MO. 1908
B. HERDER

PUBLISHER TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE
BERLIN, KARLSRUHE, MUNICH, STRASSBURG, VIENNA

Imprimatur.
Friburgi Brisgoviae, die I Mail 1908.

4: THOMAS, Archiepps.

B. HERDER, Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany).

APPROBATIONS.

Milwaukee, Wis., Jan. 10., 1907.

My dear Dr. Shahan,

Allow me to congratulate you upon the happy thought of giving us an
English translation of Dr. Bardenhewer 's excellent Manual of Patrology.
You know that I have been long wishing for just such a book which is a
real desideratum for educated Catholic Americans, especially the clergy
and our candidates for the priesthood. Protestantism, Anglican and German,
is trying to find in the primitive Church the historic foundation for its
sectarian tenets, while Rationalism seeks in the early Christian writings for
weapons with which to attack the credibility of the Gospels and the apo-
stolicity of Catholic Dogma. How can the Catholic student successfully
meet the enemies of the Church if he has no more knowledge of the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, those early authentic custodians and
exponents of the Depositum fidei , than what he has gathered from a few
disjointed texts or patristic quotations in a Manual of Dogmatic Theology,
or from the short sketches of the lives and writings of the Fathers found
in a Manual of Church History?

Yet, this is only what may be called the apologetic view of the study
of the Fathers, suggested by the contemporary struggle of the Church
defending her claim to be the original Church of Christ. There are many
other valuable advantages of thorough patristic studies. A close acquaint
ance with the Fathers of the Church will furnish those who « search the
Scriptures » with a fuller and clearer understanding of the manifold and
often hidden meaning of Holy Writ. It will provide the Christian teacher,
called to preach the word, with an inexhaustible supply of solid and at
tractive material. To the student of Church History, it will furnish a better
and more correct insight into the true causes and character of events by
throwing a wonderful light upon many questions of early Church dis
cipline and law. Nor shall we overlook the precious gems of poetry and
oratory, of narrative and description, found in early Christian literature,
which compare quite favorably with the jewels of the pagan classics.

Dr. Bardenheiver' s Manual is an excellent key to the rich and varied
literature of the «Beginnings of Christianity* of which you have given us
such interesting accounts. By your translation you have placed that key

in our hands. It is now the duty of priest and seminarian to open the
door to the treasury of our early classics. May the « Manual* have all the
success that it so richly deserves!

Yours very sincerely in Christo,

:£• S. G. MESSMER,

Archbishop of Milwaukee.

St. Louis, Mo., Jan., 20., 1907.
My dear Dr. Shahan,

I wish to congratulate you on the appearance of your translation of
Bardenhewer' s Patrology. I have heard much of the original, and am
sure that in your hands it has lost none of its value. I bespeak for it a
large circulation and shall take pleasure in commending it when oc
casion offers.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours in Christo,

4- JOHN J. GLENNON,

Archbishop of St. Louis.

Springfield, Mass., Jan. 15., 1907.

My dear Dr. Shahan,

The appearance of Bardenhewer' s Patrology in an English translation
will elicit a scholar's welcome from all professors and students of Patristic
Theology and Church History*

The excellency of the work in the original, and the well known fitness
of the translator make our approval and recommendation an easy and
willing evidence of our pleasure and satisfaction in its publication.

It should easily find space upon the library shelf of every seminarist
and every priest.

f THOMAS D. BEAVEN,

Bishop of Springfield.

Sioux Falls, S. D., Jan. 12., 1907.
My dear Doctor,

I rejoice to learn that you have translated into English Bardenhewer' s
«The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church», and that Herder
will publish the translation within the coining year. This is the best
Manual of Patrology that I know ; it will be a boon to our seminaries and
our priests. In these days, when the historical aspect of Theology, its

development and evolution, are becoming as prominent and necessary as
the Scholastic exposition of revelation, our seminarians and priests ought
to have in hand the very best that has been done on the lives and works
of the Fathers of the Church, since they are the exponents and witnesses
of the growth of theology.

I remain, dear Doctor,

Fraternally yours,

f THOMAS O' GORMAN,

Bishop of Sioux Falls.

Covington, Ky., Jan. 15., 1907.
My dear Dr. Shahan,

The clergy of America ought to be deeply grateful to you for the
translation of Dr. Bardenhewer' s Manual of Patrology. The lives and
works of the Fathers are not sufficiently known amongst us. Whilst few
priests have the leisure to study them thoroughly, they should be ac
quainted in a general way with the teachings of the Fathers of the
Church. They are the fountain heads of Tradition, the keys to the under
standing of the dogmas of the Faith; they supply the most effectual
armory in defence of Christian truth which the Catholic Church alone has
kept in its apostolic purity of doctrine.

Hoping that both yourself and your publication will receive adequate
recognition of your labors,

Devotedly yours in Christo,

f CAMILLUS P. MAES,

Bishop of Covington.

Ogdensburg, N. Y., Jan. 20., 1907.
My dear Dr. Shahan,

The reading public of America is deeply indebted to you for under
taking to present to it in an English dress the great work of Dr. Barden
hewer on the Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church. A Patro
logy of that thoroughness was still a want among us. Hereafter no one
will be excusable for misreading or misquoting those indispensable sources
of the history of religion. You have my best wishes for a wide diffusion
of your translation.

Faithfully yours in J. C.,

t H. GABRIELS,

Bishop of Ogdensburg.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST GERMAN EDITION.

In the year 1883, I was requested by the publisher Herder
to undertake a new edition of J. Alzogs Manual of Patrology
(3. ed., Freiburg i. Br., 1876). External circumstances prevented me
from accepting this flattering offer at once ; the new sphere of labor
to which I was called claimed for a long time nearly all my leisure
and strength. The publisher entrusted to another the preparation
of an improved edition of Alzog (Freiburg, 1888). On the other
hand, as soon as circumstances permitted, I undertook the prepara
tion of an entirely new work.

This work, which I now offer to the public, undertakes to present
in a very concise and comprehensive manner the actual condition
of patrological knowledge and research. It also aims, through its
bibliographical paragraphs, to interest and guide a larger number of
students in the investigation of special problems. It has been my
purpose to quote from the earlier patrological literature only what
seems most important, and similarly, to omit nothing that is impor
tant among the numerous later researches. As the subject-matter is
very extensive, I have found it necessary to confine myself often to
mere indications and suggestions, to omit too close specific discussion,
and to leave aside what seemed of minor value. The nature of the
work seemed also to impose a mere reference apropos of countless
disputed points and questions. At some later time, I hope, God
willing, to follow up this outline with a m'ore thorough investigation
of the entire field of patrology.

My colleague, Dr. C. Weyman, kindly undertook to share with
me the labor of correcting the proofs of this work. I find it dif
ficult to decide whether I owe more to the patience and accuracy of
my friend in the revision of the printed pages, or to the solid eru
dition of the savant in his concern for the correctness of the text.

Munich, September, 1894.

THE AUTHOR

X PREFACE TO THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION.

The first edition of this book met with a very kindly reception.
It was judged worthy by Godet and Verschaffel of being put into
French J, and by Angel o Mercati of translation into Italian 2. I was
less pleased, personally, with the result of my labors. Had time
and strength sufficed, I would have undertaken the preparation of
an entirely new book. The first third of the book, the outline of
the Ante-Xicene literature, was its weakest part; it appears now in
an entirely new, and I hope more satisfactory presentation. This sec
tion of the work has caused a quite disproportionate amount of labor
on my part, owing to the fact that I was preparing the same material
in two forms: the first demanded a lengthy and exhaustive research
for the comprehensive History of early ecclesiastical literature an
nounced in the preface to the first edition, the second called for the
concision and comprehensiveness of a manual. The remaining sections
of the work, the defects of which are less manifest in the detail
of description than in orderly disposition, could not receive at my
hands so thorough a revision as would otherwise have been bestowed
upon them.

The contents of the work are notably increased by the insertion
of numerous writers and works omitted in the first edition or dis
covered since its appearance. At the same time the publisher de
sired to keep the work within its original limits. This could only
be done by omitting what seemed unimportant, by simplifying quo
tation-methods, and by the use of more compact type for the biblio
graphical paragraphs. In this manner it has been possible to reduce
the size of the book by some thirty pages.

I am indebted to several scholars, particularly to Fr. Diekamp,
A. Ehrhard, Fr. X. Funk, J. Haussleiter, G. Krilgcr, and C. Wey-
man for many useful hints and suggestions. I am again especially
indebted to Dr. Weyman for his careful correction of the printer's work.

Munich, April, 1901.

THE AUTHOR.

1 Les Peres de 1'Eglise , leur vie et leurs ceuvres , par O. Bardenhewer. Edition
franchise, par P. Godet et C. Verschaffel, de 1'Oratoire , 3 vols., Paris, 1898 — 1899,
Bloud et Barral.

2 Patrologia, per il Dr. O. Bardenhewer, Professore di Teologia all' Universita di
Monaco. Versione Italiana sulla seconda edizione Tedesca, con aggiunte bibliogranche, per
il Sacerdote Dr. Prof. Angelo Mercati, Voll. i — iii, Roma, 1903, Desclee, Lefvre et Cie.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

The need of a reliable manual of Patrology in English has been
so long felt by teachers of that science that little excuse is needed
for the present attempt to place one within reach of all concerned.
During the nineteenth century much patristic material, both new and
important, has been discovered, East and West. In the same period
there has come about a notable perfection of the methods and in
struments of scholarly research, while literary criticism has scored
some of its remarkable triumphs in the province of early ecclesiastical
literature. Above all, the intense and crucial conflict concerning the
genuine nature and actual History of the primitive Christian teaching
has perforce attracted the combatants to one great armory of
weapons: the writings of the Christian Fathers. Excavation and
research among the ancient monuments of Roman imperial times
have naturally quickened interest in all contemporary literary material.
An intelligent study of the early middle ages has made clear the
incalculable influence exercised upon the barbarian world by the
Christianized civilization of the fourth and fifth centuries; the manners,
politics, and tongues of the ancestors of the modern Western world
can no longer be studied scientifically apart from a sound knowledge
of what our earliest Christian masters were. At this distance, such
knowledge must, of course, be gathered, to a great extent, from
their literature, or rather from the remnants of it that survive.

It is to the credit of German Catholic scholarship that for a
hundred years it has upheld the necessity of a solid academic forma
tion for ecclesiastics, at least, in the science of the Christian Fathers.
The names of Lumper and Permaneder , Dreiv and Moehler, Hefele
and Fessler, to speak only of the departed, come unbidden to the
memory of every student. German Catholic centres of study, like
the Catholic Theological Faculty at Tubingen, have won imperishable
fame by long decades of service in the cause of primitive Christian
literature. Scholars like Probst and v. Funk have shed renown upon
their fatherland and earned the gratitude of a multitude of toilers

XII TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

in this remote department of knowledge. Only those who attempt
to cultivate it, know what a lengthy training it exacts, and to what
an extent it calls for all the virtues and qualities of the ripest
scholarship. It is not, therefore, surprising that the best Manual of
patristic science should come to us from that quarter of Catholicism
in which our most ancient literature has long been studied with a
devotion equalled only by the critical spirit that feeds and sustains it.

When such competent judges as the modern Bollandists agree
that the «Patrologie» of Dr. Bardenhewer has no superior, for ab
undance of information, exactness of reference, and conciseness of
statement, we may take it for granted that the work is well fitted
to introduce all studious Christian youth into the broad and pleasant
sanctuary of patristic science. The experience of ecclesiastical teachers
confirms this judgment; for the work has already been translated,
into both French and Italian. The English translator has added
nothing to the text, being well contented if he has reproduced with
substantial accuracy the already highly condensed doctrine of the
author. However, a few slight additions and bibliographical items
have been incorporated from the French and Italian translations. The
translator has also added a few bibliographical references to patristic
works and treatises that have appeared quite lately. It may be
pleaded that he is dispensed from very finical completeness by
the exhaustive study of Ehrhard (Die altchristliche Literatur und
ihre Erforschung seit 1880 [1884] bis 1900), the second edition of
Chevaliers Bio-Bibliographie (1905), and the admirable patristic
Comptes-rendus of the Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique of Louvain.

The translator is much indebted to Very Rev. ReginaldWalsh, O. P.,
who has kindly consented to correct the proofs; to the author,
Professor Bardenhewer , for various services, and to others for wel
come hints and suggestions.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

Page

§ i. Notion and Purpose of Patrology . . I

§ 2. History and Literature of Patrology . 7

§ 3. Literary collections relative to the Fathers of the Church. Collective

editions of their writings. Principal collections of translations . 1 1

FIRST PERIOD.

FROM THE END OF THE FIRST TO THE BEGINNING
OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

FIRST SECTION.
PRIMITIVE ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE.

§ 4. Preliminary Remarks ... *5

§ 5. The Apostles' Creed (Symbolum Apostolicum) . *7

§ 6. The Didache or Teaching of The Twelve Apostles . 19

§ 7. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas . . 22

§ 8. Clement of Rome ..... 25

§ 9. Ignatius of Antioch

§ 10. Polycarp of Smyrna .... -35

§ ii. The Shepherd of Hermas ..... 3^

§ 12. Papias of Hierapolis ....

SECOND SECTION.
THE APOLOGETIC LITERATURE OF THE SECOND CENTURY.

§ 13. Preliminary Observations . • 44

§ 14. Quadratus .... 46

§ 15. Aristides of Athens ... 46

§ 1 6. Aristo of Pella 4$

§ 17. Justin Martyr .... -49

§ 1 8. Tatian the Assyrian ....

§ 19. Miltiades. Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Melito of Sardes . 61

§ 20. Athenagoras of Athens .... -64

§ 21. Theophilus of Antioch -65

§ 22. The Letter to Diognetus

§ 23. Hermias -69

§ 24. Minucius Felix

XIV CONTENTS.

THIRD SECTION.

THE HERETICAL LITERATURE OF THE SECOND CENTURY
AND THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA.

Page

§ 25. Gnostic Literature .......... 72

§ 26. The Judaistic Literature ......... 81

§27. The Montanist Literature ......... 85

§ 28. The New Testament Apocrypha ........ 85

§ 29. Apocryphal Gospels .......... 90

§ 30. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles ....... 97

§ 31. Apocryphal Letters of the Apostles . . . . . . . no

§ 32. Apocryphal Apocalypses . . . . . . . . . 113

FOURTH SECTION.

THE ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE OF THE SECOND

CENTURY.

§ 33. Anti-Gnostics. Their lost works . . . . . . . 116

§ 34. Irenseus of Lyons . . . . . . . . . . 118

§ 35. Anti-Montanists ........... 123

§ 36. Writings of Ecclesiastical Authorities and Synods, chiefly concerning

Heresies and Schisms . . . . . . . . . 124

FIFTH SECTION.

ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE DURING THE GENESIS OF
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER I.

THE ORIENTALS.

§ 37. General Considerations ....... .126

A. THE ALEXANDRINES.

§ 38. Clement of Alexandria 127

§ 39- Origen !36

§ 40. Dionysius of Alexandria 153

§ 41. The later headmasters of the catechetical school of Alexandria . . 157

§ 42. The so-called Apostolic Church-Ordinance 160

B. SYRO-PALESTINIANS.

§ 43. Julius Africanus ... 162

§ 44. Paul of Samosata, Malchion of Antioch, Lucian of Samosata . . 165

§ 45. Pamphilus of Csesarea and the Dialogus de recta in Deum fide . . 166

§ 46. The Didascalia apostolorum ....... 168

C. WRITERS OF ASIA MINOR.

§ 47. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder- Worker) . . . . 170
§ 48. St. Methodius of Olympus ....... 175

CONTENTS. XV
CHAPTER II.

THE WESTERN WRITERS.

Page

§ 49. General Considerations ....... 178

A. AFRICAN WRITERS.

§ 50. Tertullian 179

§ 51. St. Cyprian .... . . 190

§ 52. Arnobius ........ . 201

§ 53. Lactantius .......... . 203

B. ROMAN WRITERS.

§ 54. Hippolytus 208

§55. Novatian . . .'.,.. . . . . . . . 22O

§ 56. Papal Letters .... .... 223

C. OTHER WESTERN WRITERS.

§ 57. Commodian . . . 225

§ 58. Victorinus of Pettau and Reticius of Autun . 227

APPENDIX.

§ 59. The Acts of the Martyrs 228

SECOND PERIOD.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH TO THE
MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH CENTURY.

FIRST SECTION.
GREEK WRITERS.

§ 60. General conspectus .......... 234

§ 61. Arianism, Macedonianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism . . . 238

§ 62. Eusebius of Caesarea ......... 245

§ 63. St. Athanasius ... • 253

§ 64. The representatives of Egyptian Monachism ..... 264

§ 65. Anti-Manichaean writers . . 268

§ 66. St. Cyril of Jerusalem ... 271

§ 67. St. Basil the Great 274

§ 68. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian ...... 286

§ 69. St. Gregory of Nyssa ........ 295

§ 70. Didymus the Blind ...... ... 307

§ 71. St. Epiphanius ... 310

§ 72. Diodorus of Tarsus ... -3*5

§ 73. Theodore of Mopsuestia .318

§ 74. St. John Chrysostom .... 323

§ 75. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions . 349

§ 76. Synesius of Cyrene .... . 358

XVI CONTENTS.

Page

§ 77. St. Cyril of Alexandria . . , 36°

§ 78. Theodoret of Cyrus . 37°

§ 79. Other writers of the first half of the fifth century . 37°"

SECOND SECTION.
SYRIAC WRITERS.

§ 80. Preliminary observations . . 3°4

§ 81. Aphraates ... 385

§ 82. St. Ephrsem Syrus . 3^7

§ 83. Later writers . 393

THIRD SECTION.
LATIN WRITERS.

§ 84. General conspectus • 397

§ 85. Firmicus Maternus ... . . 401

§ 86. St. Hilary of Poitiers . 4°2

§ 87. Other opponents of Arianism . . . . . . . • 412

§ 88. Poets and Historians ...... 4*9

§ 89. Schisms and heresies; their defenders and opponents . . . 425

§ 90. St. Ambrose . 431

§ 91. Prudentius and Paulinus ......... 444

§ 92. St. Sulpicius Severus and Tyrannius Rufinus .... 45 l

§ 93- .St- Jerome . . 455

§ 94. St. Augustine ........... 473

§ 95. Friends and disciples of St. Augustine ...... 508

§ 96. Gallic writers . 515

§ 97. Pope St. Leo the Great and other Italian writers . . . . 522

THIRD PERIOD.

FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH CENTURY TO THE
END OF THE PATRISTIC AGE.

FIRST SECTION.
GREEK WRITERS.

§ 98. General conspectus .......... 529

§ 99. Writers of the second half of the fifth century 531

§ 100. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita . . . . . . . 535

§ 101. Procopius of Gaza and Aeneas of Gaza . . . . . . 541

§ 102. Leontius of Byzantium and the emperor Justinian . . . . 544

§ 103. Historians and Geographers . . . . . . . . 552

§ 104. Hagiographers ..... 557

§ 105. Poets . . . . . . . . . . 562

§ 106. Exegetes. Canonists. Ascetics ........ 569

§ 107. Dogmatic and polemical writers . . . . . , . ' . . >. 574

§ .Io8- St. John of Damascus . . 582

CONTENTS. XVII

SECOND SECTION.
ARMENIAN WRITERS.

Page

§ 109. Sketch of the early Armenian ecclesiastical literature . . . 589

THIRD SECTION.
LATIN WRITERS.

§ no. General conspectus ........ . 597

§ in. Faustus of Reji . . . 600

§ 112. Other Gallic writers . ....... 605

§ 113. Irish, Spanish, and African writers ....... 613

§ 114. Italian writers . . . . . . . . . . 620

§ 115. Boethius and Cassiodorius ........ 628

§ 116. Writers in the Three Chapters controversy ..... 638

§ 117. St. Gregory of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus .... 643

§ 1 1 8. Pope St. Gregory the Great^ ........ 650

§ 119. St. Martin of Bracara and St. Isidore of Seville .... 658

Index ....... ..... 665

INTRODUCTION.

§ i. Notion and Purpose of Patrology.

I. THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. The word Patrology (xarpo-
Ao-fio.) dates from the seventeenth century, and denoted originally
the science of the lives and writings of the Fathers of the Church.
«Fathers of the Church» or simply «Fathers» was the title of honour
mven to the ecclesiastical writers in the first' era of the Church.

Its use can be recognized as far back as the fifth century. In
modern times the explanation of the term has been sought in the
similarity of the relationship existing between a teacher and his dis
ciple to that which is found between father and son; an inter
pretation apparently confirmed by such biblical parallels as the «sons
of the prophets » in the Old Testament, and by passages in the New
like I Cor. iv. 14. It fails, however, to do justice to the historical
development of the name « Fathers ». In reality, this was trans
ferred from the bishops of the primitive Church to contemporaneous
ecclesiastical writers. In the earlier centuries, by a metaphor easily
understood, the bishop, in his quality of head or superior, was ad
dressed as «Father» or «Holy Father» (e. g. Mart. S. Polyc. 12, 2:
o 7zarf]f) ro>y %ptaTta.va)v ; and the inscription «Cypriano papae or
papati» , Cypr. Ep. 30 31 36). The authority of the bishop was
both disciplinary and doctrinal. He was the depositary of the
teaching office of the Church, and in matters of doubt or of contro
versy it was his duty to decide, as Avitness and judge, concerning
the true faith. Since the fifth century, however, this function began
to devolve (in learned discussions and conciliar proceedings) on the
ecclesiastical writers of the primitive Church. Most of them, and
those the more eminent, had, indeed, been bishops; but non-episcopal
writers might also bear reliable witness to the contemporaneous faith
of the Church, and when such testimonies dated from the earliest
Christian period, they naturally enjoyed special respect and authority.
The more frequently the consciousness of the primitive Church in
matters of faith was appealed to in the course of doctrinal disputes, the
more rapidly must so prevalent a term as « Fathers » have undergone a
certain alteration. It was used to denote the witnesses to the faith

BARDENHEVVER-SHAHAN, Patrology. I

2 INTRODUCTION.

of the primitive Church, and since such witnesses were rather its
writers than its bishops, the term passed from the latter to the former.

The change of meaning just alluded to will be made evident by the
following instances. According to St. Athanasius (Ep. ad Afros, c. 6), the
bishops of the Council ofNicsea (325) appealed to the testimony of the «Fathers»
(ex ~a-£pu>v e/ovte? TYJV jiapTUpiav) in defence of the consubstantiality of the
Son with the Father; especially prominent among these «Fathers» were two
early bishops (fafoxoirot dpyatbt), Dionysius of Rome (f 268) and Dionysius of
Alexandria (f 265), both of them defenders of the consubstantiality of the Son.
«How can they now reject the Council ofNicaea», says Athanasius, « since even
their own fathers (xal 01 ~at£p£? auttov) subscribed its decrees?* He had just
mentioned the name of the Arianizing bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. « Whose
heirs and successors are they? How can they call those men Fathers (Xe^eiv
-ocTspa?) whose profession (of faith) they do not accept?* Apparently Atha
nasius understands by « Fathers » only bishops, especially those of the primi
tive Church. The bishops, and they alone, had inherited the teaching office
of the Apostles. St. Augustine, in his dispute with the Pelagian Julianus of
Eclanum (Contra Julian. I. 34 ; II. 33 36), appeals to St. Jerome as a witness
for the ecclesiastical teaching concerning original sin ; at the same time he
is conscious of having overstepped a certain line of demarcation. To
forestall his adversary's refusal to accept the evidence of Jerome, he insists
that, though the latter was not a bishop, his extraordinary learning and the
holiness of his life entitled him to be held a reliable interpreter of the faith
of the Church. At the first session of the council of Ephesus (431), testi
monies were read from the « writings of the most holy and godfearing fathers
and bishops and other witnesses* (pi-fti'a TU>V aYitorartov xal 63iu>ta-iov Tra-eptov
xal ITTWXOTWUV xal Siacpoptov jjuxpTUpwv, Mansi, SS. Cone. Coll., iv. 1184). The
«writings» quoted are exclusively those of early bishops. In his famous
Commonitorium (434) St. Vincent of Lerins recommends with insistence
(c- 3 33 sai-) tnat the faithful hold fast to the teaching of the holy Fathers;
at the same time he makes it clear that he refers, not so much to the
bishops, as to the ecclesiastical writers of Christian antiquity.

2. FATHERS OF THE CHURCH, ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, DOCTORS
OF THE CHURCH. All the ancient ecclesiastical writers were not
trustworthy witnesses of the faith ; hence it is that posterity has not
conferred on all without distinction the title of « Fathers of the Church ».
St. Vincent of Lerins says that, in order to try the faith of Christians,
God permitted some great ecclesiastical teachers, like Origen and
Tertullian, to fall into error. The true norm and rule of faith, he
adds, is the concordant evidence of those Fathers who have remained
true to the faith of the Church in their time, and were to the end
of their lives examples of Christian virtue: «Eorum dumtaxat patrum
sententiae conferendae sunt, qui in fide et communione catholica sancte,
sapienter, constanter viventes, docentes et permanentes vel mori in
Christo fideliter vel occidi pro Christo feliciter meruerunt. » * Pope
Hormisdas2 refuses to accept appeals to the Semi-Pelagian Faustus
of Riez and other theologians, on the plea that they were not «Fa-

1 Common, c. 39; cf. c. 41.

- Quos in auc tori la tern patrum non recipit examen : Ep. 124, c. 4.

§ I. NOTION AND PURPOSE OF PATROLOGY. 3

thers». Later Councils often distinguish between theological writers
more or less untrustworthy and the « approved Fathers of the Church ». *
The earliest descriptive catalogue of « Fathers » whose writings merit
commendation, as well as of other theological authors against whose
writings people are to be warned , is found in the Decretal De re-
cipiendis et non recipiendis libris, current under the name of Pope
Gelasius I. (492 — 496). Modern patrologists indicate four criteria of
a «Father of the Church »: orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life,
ecclesiastical approval, and antiquity. All other theological writers
are known as «ecclesiastici scriptores», «ecclesiae scriptores» 2. The
Fathers were not all held in equal esteem by their successors ; both
as writers and theologians they differ much as to place and im
portance in ecclesiastical antiquity. In the West four « Fathers of the
Church » have been held as pre-eminent since the eighth century:
Ambrose (f 397), Jerome (f 420), Augustine (f 430), and Gregory
the Great (f 604); Boniface VIII. declared (1298) that he wished
these four known as Doctors of the Church par excellence, and
their feasts placed on a level with those of the apostles and evange
lists 3. Later popes have added other Fathers to the list of Doctors
of the Church, either in liturgical documents or by special decrees.
Such are, among the Latins, Hilary of Poitiers (f 366), Peter
Chrysologus (f ca. 450), Leo the Great (f 461), Isidore of Seville
(f 636). Among the Greeks, Athanasius (f 373), Basil the Great
(t 379)' Cyril of Jerusalem (f 386), Gregory of Nazianzus (f ca. 390),
John Chrysostom (f 407), Cyril of Alexandria (f 444), John of Da
mascus (f ca. 754), are honoured as Doctors of the Church. Some later
theological writers thus distinguished are: Peter Damian (f 1072),
Anselm of Canterbury (f 1 109), Bernard of Clairvaux (f 1153), Thomas
Aquinas (f 1274), Bonaventure (f 1274), Francis of Sales (f 1622),
and Alphonsus Liguori (y 1787). In 1899 Leo XIII. declared the
Venerable Bede (f 735) a Doctor of the Church. The liturgical books
of the Greek Church make mention of only three « great ecumenical
teachers» (olxou/jisvtxol fie^d^ot diddaxaXot)'. Basil the Great, Gregory
of Nazianzum, and John Chrysostom. The patrological criteria of a
« Doctor of the Church » are: orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life,
eminent learning, and formal action of the Church: «doctrina ortho-
doxa, sanctitas vitae, eminens eruditio, expressa ecclesiae declaration

y. Fessler, Instit. Patrol, ed. B. Jungmann (Innspruck 1890), i. 15 — 57.
On the earliest Latin Doctors of the Church cf. C. IVeyman in Historisches
Jahrbuch (1894), xv. 96 sq., and Revue d'histoire et de litte'rat. relig. (1898),
iii. 562 sq. On the «great ecumenical teachers» of the Greeks cf. N. Nilles

1 Probabiles ecclesiae patres : Cone. Lat. Rom. (649) can. 18 (Mansi x. 1157);
ol If/.piroi 7tardf)sg: Cone. Nic. II (787) act. 6 (Mansz xiii. 313).
- St. Jerome, De viris illustr., prol.

3 Egregios ipsius doctores ecclesiae: c. un., in vi., de reliquiis 3, 22.

4 INTRODUCTION.

in Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie (1894), xviii. 742 sq.; E. Bondy,
Les Peres de 1'Eglise in Revue Augustinienne (1904), pp. 461 — 486.

3. THE PATRISTIC EPOCH. As late as the fifth century even very
recent writers could be counted among the «holy Fathers*. Among
the «most holy and godfearing Fathers » whose writings were read in
the first session of the Council of Ephesus (June 22., 43 1)1 were Theo-
philus of Alexandria (f 412) and Atticus of Constantinople (t 425).
In the list of patristic citations, «paternae auctoritates», appended by
Leo the Great to his Letter to Flavian of Constantinople (June 13., 449) 2
there are passages from Augustine (f 430) and from Cyril of Alex
andria (f 444). The later Christian centuries tended more and more
to confine this honourable title to the ecclesiastical writers of anti
quity. It was applied to them not so much on account of their
antiquity as on account of their authority, which , in turn , had its
root in their antiquity. The « Fathers » of the first centuries are and
remain in a special way the authentic interpreters of the thoughts
and sentiments of the primitive Christians. In their writings were set
down for all time documentary testimonies to the primitive conception
of the faith. Though modern Christian sects have always denounced
the Catholic principle of « tradition », they have been compelled,
by the logic of things, to seek in ecclesiastical antiquity for some
basis or countenance of their own mutually antagonistic views. The
limits of Christian antiquity could not, of course, be easily fixed;
they remain even yet somewhat indistinct. The living current of
historical , and particularly of intellectual life , always defies any im
movable time-boundaries. Most modern manuals of Patrology draw
the line for the Greek Church at the death of John of Damascus
(j- ca. 754), for the Latin Church at the death of Gregory the Great
(f 604). For Latin ecclesiastical literature the limit should be
stretched to the death of Isidore of Seville (f 636). Like his
Greek counterpart, John Damascene , Isidore was a very productive
writer, and thoroughly penetrated with the sense of his office as a
frontiersman between the old and the new.

The teachings of the Fathers of the Church are among the original
sources of Catholic doctrine. On the reasons for the same and the extent
to which the patristic writings may be drawn upon for the proof of
Catholic teaching cf. Fessler-Jungmann, op. cit., i. 41 — 57.

4. PURPOSE OF PATROLOGY. Though the science of Patrology
takes its name from the Fathers of the Church, it includes also the
ecclesiastical writers of antiquity. Thereby, the field of its labours
is enlarged, and it becomes possible to deal with ecclesiastical litera
ture as a whole. The purpose of this science is to produce a
history of the early ecclesiastical literature, that is, of such ancient

1 Mansi, iv. 1184 — 1196. 2 Ib., vi. 961 — 972.

§ I. NOTION AND PURPOSE OF PATROLOGY. 5

theological literature as arose on the basis of the teachings of the
Church. In the peculiar and unique significance of this literature,
Patrology finds the justification of such a narrow limitation of its
subject-matter. Though this science does not ignore the distinction
between the human and the divine in the books of the New Testa
ment, it confides the study of these writings to Biblical Introduction,
convinced that it would otherwise be obliged to confine itself to such
a treatment of the same as would be unjust to inspired documents that
contain revelation. Patrology might, strictly speaking, ignore the
anti-Christian and anti-ecclesiastical, or heretical, writings of antiquity ;
nevertheless, it finds it advantageous to pay constant attention to them.
At the proper time, it becomes the duty of the patrologist, in his
quality of historian of Christian doctrine, to exhibit the genetic growth
of his subject. The development of early ecclesiastical literature was
conditioned and influenced in a notable degree by the literary conflict
against paganism, Judaism and heresy. The earliest ecclesiastical
writers enter the lists precisely as defenders of Christianity against
formal literary assaults. We do not accept as accurate a modern
definition of Patrology as «the literary history of early Christianity ».
From that point of view, it would have to include even the profane
works of Christian wrriters, and become the Christian equivalent of
heathen and Jewish literature. Moreover, it is not so much the pro
fession of Christianity on the part of the writer as the theologico-
ecclesiastical character of his work that brings it within the range of
Patrology, and stamps upon it for all time something peculiar and
distinctive. If we must no longer use the word Patrology, the science
may well be defined as the history of early ecclesiastical literature.
The considerations that affect the selection of the material, and the
limitations of Patrology affect also the treatment of the subject-matter.
Stress is laid more on the theological point of view, on the contents
of the patristic writings, than on mere literary form. It is true that
literary history has a distinctly artistic interest. In general, however,
the writings of the Fathers are not literary art-work; they expressly
avoid such a character. Until very lately a distinction was drawn
between Patrology and «Patristic». To the latter, it was said, be
longed the study of the doctrinal content of the early Christian writers.
The word « Patristic » comes from the «theologia patristica» of former
Protestant manuals of dogmatic theology that were wont to contain
a special section devoted to the opinions of the Fathers. This
was called «theologia patristica», and distinguished from «theo-
logia biblica» and «theologia symbolica». In the latter half of the
eighteenth century this «theologia patristica» gave way among Pro
testants to a specific history of dogma, destined to illustrate the con
stant development and evolution of the original apostolic teaching.
Thereby, the special office of «Patristic» was exhausted. There

O INTRODUCTION.

remains, therefore, no longer any good reason for withdrawing from
Patrology the description of the doctrines of the Fathers, and con
fining it to an account of their lives and deeds. With the loss of
its subject-matter, the raison d'etre of «Patristic» disappears. - - In
the last few decades, all former expositions of Patrology have suf
fered severe reproaches both from friend and foe. Broadly con
sidered, such reproaches were both reasonable and just. It is proper
that in the future Patrology should develop along the line of scienti
fic history, should grasp more firmly and penetrate more deeply its
own subject-matter, should first digest, and then exhibit in a scienti
fic and philosophic way, the mass of literary-historical facts that
come within its purview. In other words, its office is no longer
limited to the study, in themselves alone, of the writings of individual
Fathers, or of individual writings of the Fathers; it must also set
forth the active forces that are common to all, and the relations of
all to their own world and their own time.

Fr. Nitzsch, Geschichtliches und Methodologisches zur Patristik: Jahr-
biicher fur deutsche Theologie (1865), x. 37 — 63. Nitzsch uses the term
Patristic as identical with Patrology. Fr. Overbeck , Uber die Anfange
der patristischen Literatur: Historische Zeitschrift (new series) (1882), xii.
417 — 472. A. Ehrhard, Zur Behandlung der Patrologie: Literarischer
Handweiser, 1895, 601 — 608. J. Haussleiter, Der Aufbau der altchristlichen
Literatur: dotting. Gelehrte Anzeigen (Berlin, 1898).

5. MODERN HISTORY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE. Modern
Protestant and Rationalist scholars have created in the place of Patro
logy a history of early Christian literature, the purpose of which is
to investigate and criticize, independently of its theological or eccle
siastical aspects, the entire intellectual product of Christian antiquity
from a purely literary standpoint. They have been led to this trans
formation, or rather rejection of Patrology, not so much by general
scientific principles, as by the hypotheses of modern rationalistic
Protestantism, foremost among which is the denial of the supernatural
origin of Christianity and the Church. According to them, the so-
called Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ. It was
only after a long evolutionary period, during which the Gospel of
Christ underwent steadily a number of profoundly modifying influences
in the sense of paganism , and particularly of hellenism , that the
Catholic Church appeared among men toward the end of the se
cond century. Since that time, both this Church and its doctrines
have been at all times the subject of the most far-reaching changes
and the most inconsistent innovations. The so-called Fathers of the
Church represent only their own personal and very mutable opinions.
There is no more objective difference between ecclesiastical and non-
ecclesiastical, orthodox and heretical teaching, than between the in
spired and non-inspired books of the Scriptures, etc.

§ 2. HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF PATROLOGY. 7

It is this view of early ecclesiastical literature (in the first three
centuries) that predominates in the works of A. Harnack and G. Kriiger

(Cf- § 2, 4).

§ 2. History and Literature of Patrology.

1. ST. JEROME. - - We owe to St. Jerome the idea of a Patro-
logy or history of Christian theological literature. His work on the
Christian writers was composed at Bethlehem in 392 at the sug
gestion of the pretorian prefect Dexter 1. It is modelled on the
homonymous work of Suetonius (ca. 75 — 1 60), and professes to
be a brief account of all those « ecclesiastical writers » («ecclesiae
scriptores») who have written on the Sacred Scriptures («de scripturis
sanctis aliquid memoriae prodiderunt») from the Crucifixion to the
fourteenth year of the reign of Theodosius (392). The first chapters
are devoted to the books of the New Testament; later on, even
heretical writers are added (Bardesanes c. 33, Novatian c. 70, and
others). At the end (c. 135) he gives an account of his own writ
ings as far as the year 392. The material of the first chapters is
taken from the New Testament; the following sections, on the Greek
writers of the first three centuries, are hastily made and inaccurate
excerpts from the Church History of Eusebius of Caesarea. The
chapters on the Latin writers and on later Greek writers represent
the personal knowledge and research of St. Jerome, and although
they do not entirely satisfy our just expectations, they are never
theless an historical authority of the first rank. Erasmus, who
first edited (1516) the «De viris illustribus», published also a Greek
translation of the work {Migne 17 c.) which he attributed to Sophro-
nius, a contemporary of St. Jerome. It was not, however, executed
before the seventh century.

In the very numerous manuscripts of this work of St. Jerome the con
tinuation by Gennadius (n. 2) is usually found. It is also printed in the
latest editions, by W. Herding, Leipzig, 1879; £"• ^- Bernoulli, Sammlung
ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften xi., Frei
burg i. Br. (1895), and £. C. Richardson, Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Leipzig, 1896, xiv. i. These editions
have not rendered further improvement impossible. O. v. Gebhardt has
given us an excellent edition of the Greek translation, Leipzig, 1896 (Texte
und Untersuchungen 1. c.). Cf. St. v. Sychowski, Hieronymus als Literar-
historiker, Minister, 1894 (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, ii. 2); C. A.
Bernoulli, Der Schriftstellerkatalog des Hieronymus, Freiburg i. Br., 1895;
G. Wentzel, Die griechische Ubersetzung der Viri inlustres des Hieronymus,
Leipzig, 1895 (Texte und Untersuchungen, xiii. 3).

2. CONTINUATORS OF ST. JEROME. — For more than a thousand
years, this little book of the Hermit of Bethlehem served as the
basis of all later efforts to produce a history of theological litera
ture. All later compilers linked their work to his, and even when

1 De viris illustr. : Migne, PL., xxiii. 601 — 72°-

8 INTRODUCTION.

there was added a name forgotten by him, or by one of his con-
tinuators, the form and divisions of the work remained unchanged.
Between the years 467 — 480 (apparently), Gennadius, a priest of Mar
seilles, brought out a very useful continuation and completion of the
«De viris» *. He was a Semi-Pelagian, a fact that is responsible for
occasional deviations from his usual impartial or objective attitude.
Otherwise, Gennadius was an historian of extensive knowledge, accurate
judgment and honourable purpose. Isidore, archbishop of Seville
(f 636), added considerably to the labours of Gennadius 2, and his
disciple Ildephonsus of Toledo (f 667) contributed a short appendix
on some Spanish theologians 3. Centuries were now to pass away before
the Benedictine chronicler, Sigebert of Gembloux in Belgium (f 1112),
took up the task once more, and carried the history of ecclesiastical
literature down to his own time. In his book «De viris illustribus» 4
he treats first, «imitatus Hieronymum et Gennadium», as he himself
says (c. 171), of the ancient ecclesiastical writers; and next gives
biographical and bibliographical notes on early mediaeval Latin theo
logians, usually slight and meagre in contents, and not unfrequently
rather superficial. Somewhat similar compendia were composed by
the priest Honorius of Augustodunum (Autun?) between 1122 and
H255, by the «Anonymus Mellicensis», so called from the Bene
dictine abbey of Melk in Lower Austria, where the first manuscript
of his work was found, though the work itself was probably composed
in the abbey of Priifening near Ratisbon in 1 135 6, and by the author of
a similarly entitled work wrongly ascribed to the scholastic theologian
Henry of Ghent (f 1293). These compilations were all surpassed,
in 1494, as regards the number of authors and the abundance of
information, by the «De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis» of the celebrated
abbot Johannes Trithemius (t 1516). It contains notices of 963
writers, some of whom, however, were not theologians. Its chief
merit lies in the information given concerning writers of the later
period of Christian antiquity. For Trithemius, as for his predecessors,
St. Jerome and Gennadius are the principal sources of knowledge
concerning the literary labours of the Fathers.

These literary-historical compilations are to be found together with
the work of St. Jerome (Latin and Greek) in y. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca
ecclesiastica , Hamburg, 1718. For the later editions of Gennadius by
Herding, Bernoulli, Richardson see p. 7 • cf. also Jungmaim, Quaestiones
Gennadianae (Programme), Lipsiae, 1881 ; Br. Czapla, Gennadius alsLiterar-
historiker, Minister, 1898 (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, iv. i); Fr. Diekamp,
Wann hat Gennadius seinen Schriftstellerkatalog verfaBt ? Romische Quartal-
schrift fur christliche Altertumskunde und fur Kirchengeschichte, 1898, xii.

1 Migne, PL., Iviii. 1059 — 1120. - Ib., Ixxxiii. 1081 — 1106.

3 Ib., xcvi. 195—206. 4 Ib., clx. 547—588.

5 De luminaribus ecclesiae : Migne, PL., clxxii. 197 — 234.

6 De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis : ib., ccxiii. 961 — 984.

§ 2. HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF PATROLOGY. 9

411 — 420. For the two Spanish historians of Christian literature cf. G.
v. Dzialowski, Isidor und Ildefons als Literarhistoriker, Miinster (Kirchen-
geschichtliche Studien, iv. 2). For Sigebert of Gembloux cf. Wattenbach,
Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, 6. ed., Berlin, 1893 — 1894, ii.
155 — 162, and for his literary-historical work S. Hirseh, De vita et scriptis
Sigeberti monachi Gemblacensis , Berolini, 1841, 330 — 337. There is an
article by Stanonik on Honoritis of Augustodunum in the Kirchenlexikon
viWetzer \m.^Welte) 2. ed., vi. 268 — 274. A good edition of the «Anony-
mus Mellicensis» was published by E. Ettlinger, Karlsruhe, 1896. For the
work «De viris illustribus» current under the name of Henry of Ghent see
B. Hatireau in Memoires de 1'institut national de France, Acad. des in
scriptions et belles-lettres, Paris, 1883, xxx. 2, 349 — 357. The work of Tri-
themius is discussed by J. Silbernagl, Johannes Trithemius, 2. ed., Regens-
burg, 1885, pp. 59—65.

3. THE XVI., XVII., AND XVIII. CENTURIES. Since the fifteenth
century the study of ecclesiastical literature has made unexpected
progress. The humanists brought to light a multitude of unknown
works of Latin, and especially of Greek ecclesiastical writers. The
contention of the reformers that primitive Christianity had undergone
a profound corruption, furthered still more the already awakened interest
in the ancient literature of the Church. In 'the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, the Benedictine scholars of the French Congrega
tion of St. Maur gave a powerful and lasting impulse to the move
ment by the excellent, and in part classical, editions of texts, in which
they revealed to an astonished world historical sources of almost
infinite richness and variety. New provinces and new purposes were
thereby opened to Patrology. The Maurists made known at the
same time the laws for the historical study of the original
sources; in nearly every department of ancient ecclesiastical litera
ture, it became possible for scholars to strip the historical truth of
the veil of legend that had hung over it. It still remained customary
for literary historians, to deal with the ancient ecclesiastical literature
as a whole. The most distinguished Catholic names in this period
of patrological scholarship are those of Bellarmine (f 1621), Dupin
(f 1719), Le Nourry (f 1724), Ceillier (f 1761), Schram (f 1797),
Lumper (f 1800). Among the Protestant patrologists are reckoned the
Reformed theologians Cave (f 1713), and Oudin (f 1717), a Premon-
stratensian monk who became a Protestant in 1690). The Lutheran
writers, Gerhard (f 1637), Hulsemann (f 1661), Olearius (f 1711), and
others introduced and spread the use of the term « Patrology », meaning
thereby a comprehensive view of all Christian theological literature
from the earliest period to mediaeval, and even to modern times.

Robertus Card. Bellarminus S. J., De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis liber unus,
cum adiunctis indicibus undecim et brevi chronologia ab orbe condito
usque ad annum 1612, Romae, 1613; Coloniae, 1613, et saepius. L. E.
Dupin, Nouvelle bibliotheque des auteurs ecclesiastiques , Paris, 1686 sq.
The several sections of this extensive work appeared under different titles.
The number of volumes also varies according to the editions. Because of

INTRODUCTION.

its very unecclesiastical character the work of Dupin was placed on the
Index, May 10. 1757. N. Le Nourry O. S. B., Apparatus ad bibliothecam
maximam veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Lug-
duni (1677) editam, 2 tomi, Paris, 1703—1715- &• Ceillier O. S. B., Histoire
generate des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques, 23 vols., Pans, 1729—1763;
a new edition was brought out atParis, 1858—1869, 16 vols. D. Schram O. S. B.,
Analysis operum SS. Patrum et scriptorum eccl. , 18 tomi, Aug. Vind.,
I78o— 1796. G. Lumper O. S. B., Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis
atque doctrina SS. Patrum aliorumque scriptorum eccl. triura primorum
saeculorum, 13 tomi, Aug. Vind., 1783— 1 799.

G. Cave, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia litteraria a ,Christo nato
usque' ad saec. XIV, Lond. , 1688. C. Oudin , Commentarius de scripto-
ribus eccles., 3 tomi, Lipsiae, 1722.

Joh. Gerhardi Patrologia, s. de primitivae ecclesiae christianae doctorum
vita ac lucubrationibus opusculum posthumum, Jenae, 1653; 3. ed., Gerae,
1673. J. Hillsemann, Patrologia, ed. J. 'A. Scherzer, Lipsiae, 1670.^ J. G.
Oharius, Abacus patrologicus, Jenae, 1673. Idem, Bibliotheca scriptorum
eccles., 2 tomi, Jenae, 1710 — 1711.

Many ancient ecclesiastical writers are treated at much length by
L. S. le Nain de Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a 1'histoire ecclesiastique des
six premiers siecles, 1 6 tomes, Paris, 1693—1712, often reprinted-, cf. also
J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca seu notitia scriptorum veterum Grae-
corum, 14 voll., Hamburgi, 1705 — 1728. A new, but unfinished edition of
Fabricius was published by G. Chr. Harks, 12 voll., Hamburg, 1790—1809.
C. Tr. G. Schoenemann , Bibliotheca historico-literaria Patrum latinorum,
2 tomi, Lipsiae, 1792 — 1794.

4. PATROLOGY IN MODERN TIMES. During the nineteenth century,
the materials of ancient ecclesiastical literary history have steadily
increased. Not only have many new Greek and Latin texts been
discovered, notably by such scholars as Cardinal Mai (f 1854) and
Cardinal Pitra (f 1889), but entirely new fields have been thrown
open, particularly in the domain of the ancient Syriac and Armenian
literatures; the elaboration of this material has called forth, especially
in Germany, England, and North America, a zeal that grows ever
more active and general. Protestant theologians paid particular atten
tion to the problems of Christian antiquity, and classical philologians
learned to overcome their former attitude of depreciation of theo-
logico-Christian literature. The press poured forth patristic mono
graphs in such numbers that their ever-growing flood became at
times almost a source of embarrassment. Among the comprehensive
works published by Catholic authors were those of Mohler (f 1838),
Permaneder (f 1862), Fessler (f 1872), Alzog (f 1878), Nirschl, and
others. In the latter half of the eighteenth century the custom
arose of dividing the later from the earlier Fathers, and making
these latter the subject of a separate branch of literary and historical
study. Within the last few years, Protestant theologians have made
exhaustive studies on the writers of the first three centuries. In the first
part of his monumental work, Adolf Harnack has presented with an
unexampled fulness the entire material of pre-Eusebian Christian literature.

§ 3- LITERARY COLLECTIONS. I I

y. A. Mohler , Patrologie oder christliche Literargeschichte, edited by
F. X. Reithmayr , vol. i (the first three Christian centuries), Ratisbon
1840. The work was not continued. M. Permaneder, Bibliotheca patristica,
Landishuti, 1841 — 1844, 2 tomi. J.Fesskr, Institutiones Patrologiae, Inns-
pruck, 1850 — 1851, 2 tomi; denuo recensuit, auxit, edidit B.Jungmann, ib.,
1890 — 1896. y. Alzog, Gnindrifi der Patrologie oder der alteren christ-
lichen Literargeschichte, Freiburg, 1866, 4. ed. , ib. 1888. J. Nirschl,
Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik, Mainz, 1881 — 1885, 3 vols.
y. Rezbdnyay , Compendium patrologiae et patristicae, Quinqueecclesiis
[i. e. Fiinfkirchen], 1894. B. Swete, Patristic Study, London, 1902.

Ch. Th. Cruttwell, A literary history of early Christianity, including
the Fathers and the chief heretical writers of the Ante-Nicene period,
London, 1893, 2 vols. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Lite-
ratur bis auf Eusebius, I. Part : Die Uberlieferung und der Bestand, Leipzig,
1893. II. Part: Die Chronologic, i. vol.: Die Chronologic der altchrist
lichen Literatur bis Irenaus, Leipzig, 1897 ; 2. vol. : Die Chronologic der
Literatur von Irenaus bis Eusebius, ib., 1904. G. Krilger, Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Freiburg, 1895 ;
with supplement, 1897: English transl. by Gillet, History of Early Christian
Literature, New York and London, 1897.

P. Batiffol, La litterature grecque, Paris, 1897 (Bibliotheque de 1'enseigne-
ment de 1'histoire ecclesiastique. Anciennes litteratures chretiennes). The
Greek theologians of the Byzantine period (527 — 1453) are treated by A. Ehr-
hard in K. Krumbacher , Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, 2. ed.,
Munich, 1897, pp. 37 — 218. For the Greek hymnology of the same period cf.
ib. pp. 653 — 705. The histories of Roman literature, by Bdhr , Teuffel-
Schwabe, and Schanz , devote attention to the Latin theological writers:
y. C/ir. F. Bdhr, Geschichte der romischen Literatur, vol. iv: Die christ-
lich-romische Literatur, Karlsruhe, 1836 — 1840; W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte
der romischen Literatur, neu bearbeitet von L. Schwabe, 5. ed., Leipzig, 1890,
2 vols.; M. Schanz, Geschichte der romischen Literatur, 3. Part: Die Zeit
von Hadrian (117) bis auf Konstantin (324), Munich, 1896, 2. ed. 1905.
4. Part, i. Half: Die Literatur des 4. Jahrhunderts, 1904. Cf. especially
A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abend-
lande, vol. i: Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Literatur von ihren An-
fangen bis zum Zeitalter Karls des Groften, Leipzig, 1874, 2. ed. 1889.
Much less satisfactory is the work of M. Manitius , Geschichte der christlich-
lateinischen Poesie bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 1891.
In the proper place will be mentioned the descriptions of ancient Syriac
and Armenian literature. The work of Smith and Wace is very useful,
relatively complete and generally reliable : A Dictionary of Christian Bio
graphy, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, edited by W. Smith and H. Wace,
London, 1877 — 1887, 4 vols. O. Bardenhewer , Geschichte der altkirchl.
Literatur, I. — II. torn.: Bis zum Beginn des 4. Jahrhunderts, Freiburg,
1902—1903.

§ 3. Literary collections relative to the Fathers of the Church. Collective edi
tions of their writings. Principal collections of translations.

i. S. F. W. Hoffmann, Bibliographisches Lexikon der gesamten Litera
tur der Griechen, 2. ed. , Leipzig, 1838 — 1845, 3 vojs- ^ Engelmann,
Bibliotheca scriptorum classicorum, 8. ed. , containing the literature from
1700 — 1878, revised by E. Preufl, Leipzig, 1880—1882, 2 vols. Ulisse
Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age, vol. i: Bio-
Bibliographie, Paris, 1877 — 1886, with a supplement, Paris, 1888, 2. ed.
1904. E, C. Richardson, Bibliographical synopsis, in the Ante-Nicene

12 INTRODUCTION.

Fathers, Supplement, Buffalo, 1897, pp. i — 136 (see n. 3). A. Ehrhard,
Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Erforschung seit 1880. Allgemeine
Ubersicht und erster Literaturbericht (1880 — 1884), Freiburg (Straftburger
theol. Studien i, 4 — 5). Id., Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Erforschung
von 1884 bis 1900. I: Die vornicanische Literatur, Freiburg, 1900 (Straft-
burger theol. Studien, Supplem. I). Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirch-
lichen Literatur, Freiburg, 1902 — 1903, vol. i — ii. The literary compilations
descriptive of the Syriac patristic literature are discussed in § 80—83.

2. The principal editions of the Fathers are the following: M. de la
Bigne, Bibliotheca SS. Patrum supra ducentos, Paris., 1575, 8 voll., with
an appendix, ib. 1579; 6. ed., ib. 1654, 17 voll.

Magna Bibliotheca veterum Patrum et antiquorum scriptorum eccle-
siasticorum, opera et studio doctissimorum in Alma Universitate Colon.
Agripp. theologorum ac professorum, Colon. Agr., 1618, 14 voll., with a
Supplementum vel appendix, ib. 1622.

Fr. Combefis , Graeco-Latinae Patrum Bibliothecae novum auctarium,
Paris., 1648, 2 voll.; Id., Bibliothecae Graecorum Patrum auctarium no-
vissimum, ib. 1672, 2 voll.

L. d' Achery , Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis,
maxime Benedictinortim, supersunt Spicilegium, Paris., 1655 — 1677, 13 voll. ;
new edition by L. Fr. J. de la Barre , Paris, 1723, 3 voll. It has been
proved lately that d' Achery included, in good faith, several documents
forged by the Oratorian Jerome Vigmer (f 1661); the proof is clearest for
just those pieces that were held to be the special pride of the collection.
Cf. y. Havet, Les decouvertes de Jerome Vignier : Bibliotheque de l'£cole
des Chartes, Paris, 1885, xlvi. 205 — 271.

Maxima Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque ecclesiae scripto
rum, Lugduni, 1677, 27 voll.

y. B. Cotelier, Ecclesiae Graecae monumenta, Paris 1677 — 1686, 3 voll.
In some copies the Analecta Graeca of B. de Montfaucon (Paris, 1688)
are called the fourth volume of the Cotelier collection.

A. Gallandi , Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum
ecclesiasticorum, Venetiis, 1765 — 1781 et 1788, 14 voll. Index alphabeticus
Bibliothecae Gallandii, Bononiae, 1863.

M. y. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae seu Auctorum fere jam perditorum se-
cundi tertiique saeculi fragmenta quae supersunt. Accedunt epistolae syn-
odicae et canonicae Nicaeno concilio antiquiores, Oxonii, 1814 — 1818, 4 voll.,
ed. altera, 1846 — 1848, 5 voll.

A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova Collectio e Vaticanis codicibus
edita, Romae, 1825 — 1838, 10 voll. Id., Classici atictores e Vaticanis co
dicibus editi, ib. 1828 — 1838, 10 voll. Id., Spicilegium Romanum, ib.
1839—1844, 10 voll. Id. , Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, ib. 1844 — 1854,
7 voll.; torn, viii — ix, ed. y. Cozza-Luzi, ib. 1871 — 1888.

Patrologiae cursus completus. Accurante J. P. Mignc, Paris., 1844 ad
1866. It consists of a Greek and a Latin series. The Latin Fathers were
published between 1844 and 1855, and come down to Innocent III.
(t 1216), in 217 vols., with Indices in four vols. (218 — 221). The Greek
Fathers were published from 1857 to 1866 and reach to the Council of
Florence (1438 — 1439). Tne latter series is without Indices. D. Scholarios
published at Athens, 1879, a Catalogue of the Greek writings in the Migne
edition, and of those in the Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae (Bonn,
1828—1855, 48 vols.), also some fascicules of a broadly conceived index
to both these series of Greek writers, Athens, 1883 — 1887. A short catalogue
of the authors printed in the Migne series of Greek Fathers may be found
in A. Potthast, Bibliotheca historica medii aevi, 2. ed., Berlin, 1896, ci — cvi.

§ 3- LITERARY COLLECTIONS. 13

y. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense complectens SS. Patrum scripto-
rumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera, Paris, 1852 — 1858, 4 voll.
Id., Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta, Romae, 1864 — 1868,
2 voll. Id., Analecta sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi parata, Paris, 1876 — 1891,
6 voll. Id., Analecta sacra et classica Spicil. Solesm. parata, ib. 1888. His
Analecta novissima (ib. 1885 — 1888, 2 voll.) contain, with the exception
of some papal letters in the first volume, only mediaeval documents.

Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, editum consilio et im-
pensis Academiae Litterarum Caesareae Vindobonensis, 1866 sqq.

SS. Patrum opuscula selecta ad usum praesertim studiosorum theologiae.
Edidit et commentariis auxit H. Hurter S. J., Innspruck, 1868 — 1885, 48 voll.
Most of the volumes went through several editions. Series altera, ib.
1884—1892, 6 voll.

Monumenta Germaniae historica. Inde ab anno Christi quingentesimo
usque ad annum millesimum et quingentesimum edidit Societas aperiendis
fontibus rerum Germanicarum medii aevi. Auctores antiquissimi , Berol.
1877 — 1898, 13 voll. This section of the Monumenta, formerly edited by
Mommsen , includes the Latin writers of the transition period from the
Roman to the Teutonic era.

Sammlung ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellen-
schriften, als Grundlage fiir Seminariibungen herausgegeben unter Leitung
von G. Kriiger, Freiburg, 1891 sq.

G. Rauschen, Florilegium patristicum. Digessit, vertit, adnotavit G. R.
Fasc. i: Monumenta aevi apostolici. Fasc. ii: S. Justini apologiae duae.
Fasc. iii: Monumenta minora saeculi secundi. Bonnae, 1904—1905.

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte,
herausgegeben von der Kirchenvater-Kommission der konigl. preuftischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Leipzig 1897 ff.

Two editions now in progress of select works by Fathers may be
mentioned. One is the «Cambridge Patristic Texts». Of this series two
volumes have appeared, viz. : «The five Theological Orations of Gregory
of Nazianzus« , ed. Mason, 1899; «The Catechetical Oration of Gregory
of Nyssa», ed. Srawley, 1903. «The Letters and other Remains of Dio-
nysius of Alexandria », ed. Feltre, 1904.

The other collection is «Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum, theologiae
tironibus et universe clero accommodata», Vizzini etc., Romae, 1901 sqq.
Thirteen vols. of this series have been issued. It should be observed that
in it all Greek works are accompanied by a Latin translation.

For more detailed information as to the contents of the older collec
tive editions of the Fathers cf. Th. Ittig, De Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum
variisque veterum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum collectionibus, Lipsiae, 1707.
y. G. Dowling, Notitia scriptorum SS. Patrum aliorumque veteris ecclesiae
monumentorum, quae in collectionibus Anecdotorum post a. Chr. 1700 in
lucem editis continentur, Oxonii, 1839. The collective editions of the
Syriac Fathers are described in §§ 80 — 83.

3. COLLECTIONS OF TRANSLATIONS. Among the principal col
lections of translations the following deserve mention:

Bibliothek der Kirchenvater. Auswahl der vorziiglichsten patristischen
Werke in deutscher Ubersetzung unter der Oberleitung von Fr. X. Rcith-
mayr, fortgesetzt von B. Thalhofer, Kempten, 1860 — 1888, 80 voll.

Library of the Fathers, edited by Pusey, Keble and Newman, Oxford,
1838 — 1888, 45 voll. The Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Translations of
the writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325, edited by A. Roberts and

14 INTRODUCTION.

y. Donaldson, Edinburgh, 1866—1872, 24voll, with a supplementary volume,
ed. by A. Menzies, ib. 1897. This collection of translations was reprinted
at Buffalo, 1884 — 1886, under the direction of A. Cleveland Coxe, 8 voll.
with a supplement, 1887 (New York, 1896, 10 voll.). For the bibliography
of English translations of the Ante-Nicene Fathers see Ernest C. Richardson
(ib. vol. x): Bibliographical Synopsis, passim.

Ph. Schaff and H. Wace, A select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church. In connection with a number of patristic
scholars of Europe and America. Buffalo and New York, 1886 — 1890,
14 voll. Second Series, New York,

FIRST BERIOD.

FROM THE END OF THE FIRST TO THE BEGINNING
OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

FIRST SECTION.

PRIMITIVE ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE.

§ 4. Preliminary Remarks.

The primitive Christians were in general disinclined to literary
composition. The Gospel was preached to the poor (Mt. n, 5), and
»not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in shewing of the
spirit and power » (i Cor. 2, 4). The Apostles wrote only under the
pressure of external circumstances; even in later times living oral in
struction remained the regular means of transmission and propagation
of the Christian truth.

Apart from the books of the New Testament, we possess but very
few literary remains of the apostolic and sub-apostolic period. Among
the most ancient are the Apostles' Creed, and the « Doctrine of the
Twelve Apostles» discovered in 1883; both owe their origin to the
practical needs of the primitive Christian communities. There are,
moreover, some Letters, at once the outcome of the pastoral zeal of
the ecclesiastical authorities and echoes of the apostolic Epistles.

The authors of these Letters, and a few other ecclesiastical writers
of the second century, are usually known as the Apostolic Fathers.
J. B. Cotelier (f 1686) was the first to give the title of «Patres
aevi apostolici» to the .author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas,
Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. Later
on Papias of Hierapolis and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus
were included in the series. There is really no intimate relationship
between these writings. The work of Hermas is an exhortation to
penance in the shape of a vision. Of the work of Papias only meagre
fragments have reached us, quite useless for any clear intelligence
of its original form; while the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, in
view of its tendency and form , more properly belongs to the
apologists.

Among the collective editions of the writings ot the Apostolic Fathers
the following are the most important. Patres aevi apostolici sive SS. Patrum,

1 6 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, Barnabae, dementis Rom., Hermae,
Ignatii , Polycarpi , opera edita et inedita , vera et supposititia , una cum
dementis, Ignatii et Polycarpi actis atque martyriis. Ex mss. codicibus
eruit, correxit versionibusque et notis illustravit J. B. Cotelerius, Paris., 1672,
2 vol. A new edition was issued by J. Clericus , Antwerp, 1698, and
Amsterdam, 1724, and was reprinted, with the fragments ofPapias and the
Epistle to Diognetus added, in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., i — m, Venetiis,
1765 — 1767; also in Migne, PG. i. n v, Paris., 1857. - - Opera Patrum
apostolicorum ed. C. J. Hefele, Tubingen, 1839, 4. ed. 1855. Opp. Patr.
apostol. , textum recensuit , adnotationibus criticis, exegeticis, historicis il
lustravit, versionem latinam, prolegomena, indices addidit P. X. Funk. Ed.
post Hefelianam quartam quinta. Vol. i : Epistulae Barnabae , dementis
Romani, Ignatii, Polycarpi, Anonymi ad Diognetum, Ignatii et Polycarpi
martyria, Pastor Hermae, Tubingen, 1878; ed. nova Doctrina duodecim
Apostolorum adaucta. 1887. Vol. ii: dementis R. epistulae de virginitate
eiusdemque martyrium, epistulae Pseudo-Ignatii, Ignatii martyria tria . . .,
Papiae et seniorum apud Irenaeum fragmenta, Polycarpi vita, 1881. A
second edition ®i Funk's work appeared at Tubingen 1901, 2 voll. (Patres
Apostolici, i: Doctrina duodecim Apostolorum, Epistulae Barnabae, de
mentis Romani, Ignatii, Polycarpi huiusque martyrium, Papiae, Quadrati,
presbyterorum apud Irenaeum fragmenta, Epistola ad Diognetum, Pastor
Hermae ; ii : dementis Romani epistulae de virginitate eiusdemque mar
tyrium, Epistulae Pseudo-Ignatii, Ignatii martyria, fragmenta Polycarpiana,
Polycarpi vita). F. X. Funk, Die apostolischen Vater (Sammlung aus-
gewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtl. Quellenschriften , ed. Krilger,
2. series I), Tubingen, 1901. — Patrum apostolicorum opera ed. A. R. M.
Dressel, Lipsiae, 1857, 2. ed. 1863. — • Patrum apostol. opera, textum recen-
suerunt, commentario exeg. et histor. illustraverunt , apparatu critico, ver-
sione lat, prolegg. , indicibus instruxerunt O. de Gebhardt , Ad. Harnack,
Th. Zahn, ed. post Dresselianam alteram tertia. Ease, i : Barnabae epist.
Graece et Lat., dementis R. epp. recens. atque illustr., Papiae quae stiper-
sunt, Presbyterorum reliquias ab Irenaeo servatas, vetus Ecclesiae Rom.
symbolum, ep. ad Diognetum adiecerunt O. de Gebhardt et Ad. Harnack,
Lipsiae, 1875. Fasc. i, part, i, 2. ed. : dementis R. epp., textum ad fidem
codicum et Alexandrini et Constantinopolitani nuper inventi rec. et ill.
O. de Gebhardt et Ad. Harnack, 1876. Fasc. i, part, ii, 2. ed. : Barnabae
epist., Papiae quae supersunt etc. adiec. O. de Gebhardt et Ad. Harnack,
1878. Fasc. II: Ignatii et Polycarpi epistulae, martyria, fragmenta rec. et
ill. Th. Zahn, 1876. Fasc. iii: Hermae Pastor graece, addita versione
latina recentiore e cod. Palatino, rec. et ill. O. de Gebhardt et Ad. Harnack,
1877 (Patrum apostol. opp. rec. O. de Gebhardt, Ad. Harnack et Th. Zahn,
ed. minor, Lipsiae, 1877, 1894, 1900, 1902). — Novum Testamentum extra
canonem receptum (I. Clemens R., II. Barnabas, III. Hermas. IV. Evangelio-
rum sec. Hebraeos, sec. Petrum, sec. Aegyptios, Matthiae traditionum, Petri
et Pauli praedicationis et actuum, Petri Apocalypseos etc. quae supersunt),
ed. Ad. Hilgenfeld, Lipsiae, 1866, 2. ed. 1876—1884. -- S. Clement of
Rome. The two Epistles to the Corinthians. A revised text with intro
duction and notes. By J. B. Lightfoot, Cambridge, 1869. S. Clement of
Rome. An Appendix containing the newly recovered portions. With intro
ductions, notes and translations. By J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1877. The
Apostolic Fathers. Part ii: St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp. Revised texts with
introductions, notes, dissertations and translations. By J. B. Lightfoot,
London, 1885, 3 voll., 2. ed. 1889. The Apostolic Fathers. Part, i: St. Cle
ment of Rome. A revised text with introductions, notes, dissertations and
translations By the late J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1890, 2 voll. (The

§ 5- THE APOSTLES' CREED (SYMBOLUM APOSTOLICUM). 17

Apostolic Fathers, text and translation, by Lightfoot and Harmer, i vol.,
London, 1890.)

German translations of the Apostolic Fathers were made by Fr. X.
Karker, Breslau, 1847 \ H. Scholz, Glitersloh, 1865 ; J. Chr. Mayer, Kempten,
1869, with supplement containing the newly discovered fragments of the
so-called Two Epistles to the Corinthians, Kempten 1880 (Bibliothek der
Kirchenvater). The Apostolic Fathers were translated into English by
J. Donaldson (The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. i, Edinburgh,
1866); Ch. H. Hook, London, 1872; Dr. Burton, ib. 1888—1889.

Among the writers on the Apostolic Fathers are : Ad. Hilgenfdd, Die
Apostolischen Vater, Untersuchungen liber Inhalt tmd Ursprung der unter
ihrem Namen erhaltenen Schriften, Halle 1853. Ch. E. Freppel , Les
Peres apostoliques et leur epoque, Paris 1859. 4. ed. 1885. J. Donaldson,
A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the death
of the Apostles to the Nicene Council. Vol. i: The Apostolical Fathers,
London, 1864, 2. ed. 1874. C. Skworzow, Patrologische Untersuchungen.
Uber Ursprung der problematischen Schriften der Apostolischen Vater, Leipzig,
1875. J. Sprinzl, Die Theologie der Apostolischen Vater, Wien, 1880.

§ 5. The Apostles' Creed (Symbolum Apostolicum).

1. THE TEXT. According to an ancient tradition1 the Apostles'
Creed, i. e. the baptismal profession of faith of the Roman liturgy,
is of apostolic origin, not only in contents, but textually. The subject
of this tradition is not, however, the Creed in its present form, but
in a much older one, whereof the text, both in Greek and Latin, can
be reconstructed with almost absolute certainty. The oldest authority
for the Greek text is a letter of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, to
Pope Julius I., written in 337 or 338 2. The Latin text is first
met with in the commentary on the Creed written by Rufinus of
Aquileia (f 410). The Latin text is certainly a translation from the
Greek. The extant text of the Creed differs from these ancient
texts chiefly by reason of a few not very important additions
(descendit ad infer os, sanctorum communionem, vitam aeternam).
The circumstances under which the present text came into use are
shrouded in obscurity; it is first met with in Southern Gaul about
the middle of the fifth century.

2. ITS ANTIQUITY. Caspari has demonstrated, by profound and
extensive researches, that the ancient baptismal creed of the Ro
man Church is the common basis and root of all the primitive
baptismal creeds of the West. Following in his footsteps, Katten-
busch holds that the Roman creed was also the archetype of all
Eastern creeds or symbols of faith. Tertullian expressly asserts that
the African Church received its baptismal creed from Rome 3. He
outlines frequently what he calls a Rule of Faith 4, i. e. a sketch of the

1 Tradunt maiores nostri, Rufinus, Comm. in Symb. apost., c. 2.

2 Epiph., Haeres. 72, 2 — 3. 3 De praescr. haeret., c. 36.

4 Regula fidei, lex fidei, regnla. Cf. De praescr. haeret., c. 13; De virgin, vel.
c. i ; Adv. Prax., c. 2.

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 2

1 8 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

universally taught ecclesiastical belief; it is simply a paraphrase of
the Old-Roman baptismal creed. It was a baptismal creed that served
Irenseus as a criterion in his description of «the faith, that the Church
scattered through the whole world had received from the Apostles
and their disciples» 1. If the creed he describes be not that of the
Roman Church, it is surely one that resembled it very much. The
writings of St. Justin show that in the first half of the second century
the Roman Church possessed a fixed and definite baptismal creed2.
We possess no historical authorities older than those mentioned.

3. APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE CREED. It is certain that the con
tents of the Old-Roman Creed are apostolic, i. e. it reproduces in an
exact and reliable way the teaching of the Apostles. From what has
been said in the preceding paragraph it will be seen that it is not
possible to demonstrate the traditional belief in the apostolic origin
of its phraseology; on the other hand it is still more difficult to
overthrow the same. All objections to the contrary repose on
untenable historico-dogmatic hypotheses. It is certain, on the one
hand, that from the earliest days of the Church the need of some
kind of a profession of Christian faith before the reception of baptism
was felt; the convert must in some way express his faith in the
fundamental facts and doctrines of Christianity 3. On the other hand,
it must be admitted, with Caspari, that the ancient Roman Creed
«with its primitive seventy, its extreme simplicity and brevity, its highly
lapidary style, impresses us as a document that has come down, word
for word, from the most remote Christian antiquity ».

4. LITERATURE. The traditional forms or recensions of the Apostles'
Creed are collected in

H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum , 9. ed., aucta
et emendata ab J. Stahl, Freiburg, 1900, pp. i — 8; with greater fulness in
A. Plahn, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche,
3. ed. by G. L. Ha/in, Breslau, 1897, pp. 22 f. All modern investigations
of the ancient baptismal creed of the Church date from the fundamental
labours of Caspari (f 1892): C. P. Caspari, Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und
wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glau-
bensregel, Christiania, 1866 — 1875, 3 v°ls- Id-> Alte und neue Quellen zur
Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, ib. 1879.

Kattenbusch availed himself of the scholarly work of Caspari: F. Katten-
busch, Das Apostolische Symbol, seine Entstehung, sein geschichtlicher Sinn,
seine urspriingliche Stellung im Kulttis und in der Theologie der Kirche.
Vol. i: Die Grundgestalt des Taufsymbols, Leipzig, 1894. Vol. ii: Verbreitung
und Bedeutung des Taufsymbols, 1897—1900. Cf. also M. Nicolas, Le
symbole des Apotres. Essai histor. Paris, 1867. C. A. Heurtley , A His
tory of the Earlier Formularies of Faith of the Western and Eastern
Churches, London, 1892. We can cite but a few of the writings called forth
in Germany since 1892 by the «Kampf um das Apostolikum» , a conflict
that centred rather about the contents than about the text of the Creed.

1 Adv. haer., i. 10, n ; cf. iii. 4, i — 2; iv. 33, 7.

2 Apol., i. 61. * Acts viii. 37; cf. Mk. xvi. 16.

§ 6. THE DIDACHE OR TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 19

The chief opponent of the «Apostolikum» was A. Harnack , Das
Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, Berlin, 1892, 25. ed. 1894. Among its
Protestant defenders Th. Zahn , Das Apostolische Symbolum, Erlangen,
1893, 2. ed., was easily prominent. Catholic scholarship was represented by
xS. Bdumer, Das Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, Mainz, 1893, and C. Blume,
Das Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, Freiburg, 1893. Cf. B. Dor holt, Das
Taufsymbolum der alten Kirche nach Ursprung imd Entwicklung. Parti:
Geschichte der Symbolforschung, Paderborn, 1898. Cf. also J. Kunze,
Glaubensregel, Heilige Schrift und Taufbekenntnis, Leipzig, 1899. Other
writers on the Apostles' Creed are O. Scheel in Getting. Gelehrten Anzeigen,
1901, clxii. 835 — 864, 913 — 948; A, A, Hopkins, The Apostles' Creed,
a Discussion, New York, 1900. We may also note the discussion between
Dom Fr. Chamand and A. Vacandard in the Revue des questions histo-
riques, for 1901. W. Sanday , Further Research on the History of the
Creed, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1901), iii. i — 21. G. Semeria, II Credo
in Studi Religiosi 1902, ii. i — 21, and in Dogma, Gerarchia e Culto
nella Chiesa primitiva, Rome, 1902, 315 — 336; G. Voisin, L'origine du
Symbole des Apotres, in Revue d'hist. eccles., 1902, iii. 297- — 323; A. C.
McGiffert, The Apostles' Creed, its Origin, its Purpose and its Historical
Interpretation, London, 1902; W. W. Bishop, The Eastern Creeds and the
Old Roman Symbol in American Journal of Theology, 1902, 518—528;
A, G. Mortimer, The Creeds, an Historical and Doctrinal Exposition of
the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, London, 1902 ; A. Cusham,
The Apostles' Creed, its Origin, its Purpose, and its Historical Inter
pretation, Edinburg, 1903 ; V. Ennoni, Histoire du Credo, le Symbole des
Apotres, Paris, 1903 ; D. F. Weigand, Das Apostolische Symbol im Mittel-
alter, eine Skizze, Gieften, 1904. Burn, The Textus Receptus of the
Apostles' Creed, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 481 — 500.

§ 6. The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

I . ITS CONTENTS. This is the title of one of the oldest documents
of Christian antiquity, discovered in 1883 by Philotheos Bryennios.
In the only manuscript yet known, written in 1056, the little work
is called Awayy xvpiou dta TOJV dcbdsxa dnoffroAwy TO"IQ e&vsffiv, while
in the table of contents it is simply Aida'/y TWV ocofexa diroaToXatv.
The former is not only an older title than the latter, but is most
probably the original. By it the anonymous author meant to suggest
a compendious presentation of the teaching of Jesus Christ as
preached to the gentiles by the Apostles. In length it about
equals the Epistle to the Galatians, and is divided into two parts.
The first (cc. I — 10) contains an ecclesiastical ritual. In it are found
instruction in Christian ethics (cc. I— 6), in the shape of the descrip
tion of the Two Ways, the Way of Life (cc. I — 4) and the Way of
Death (c. 5)- This is expressly set forth as a guide for the instruc
tion of those who seek baptism (c. 7, i). The author then treats of
baptism (c. 7), of fasting and prayer (c. 8), and of the Blessed Eu
charist (cc. 9 — 10). These liturgical precepts are completed in the
second part by instruction concerning the mutual relations of the
Christian communities (the scrutiny of wandering Christian teachers,
Aot xai npopyTat, c. 1 1, the reception of travelling brethren c. 13,

2 *

2O FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

the support of prophets and teachers who settle in the community,
c. 13), the religious life of each community, e. g. divine service on
Sundays (c. 14), and the superiors of the communities, iTricrxoTrot, xal
dtdxovot (c. 15, i — 2). The work closes with a warning to be
vigilant, for the last day is at hand.

2. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. It was probably composed
in the last decades of the first century, most likely in Syria or Palestine.
It is undoubtedly of the highest antiquity; one meets no longer in
the second Christian century with such conditions as are taken for
granted in its references to the rite of baptism (c. 7), of the Blessed
Eucharist (cc. 9 — 10), the ministers of the divine mysteries (exiaxoxot
xai dtdxovot, c. 15, i), and the ministers of the divine word (dnooTokoi
xai 7Tf>o(p'7jTat, c. 11, 3). The description of the Ways of Life and
Death is so strikingly similar to that of the Ways of Light and
Darkness in the Epistle of Barnabas (cc. 18 — 20), itself probably com
posed at the end of the first century, that one of these two authors
must have copied from the other, or both must have used a common
original. Apart from this latter hypothesis, Funk, Zahn, and SchaiT
have shown, as against Bryennios, Harnack, Volkmar and others, that
in all probability it is not the Didache which is dependent on the Epistle
to Barnabas, but the contrary. An older model is not to be
postulated. Especially, is there no good reason for subscribing to the
hypothesis of Harnack, Taylor, Savi and others, that the basis of the
first chapters of the Didache is a Jewish work, some ancient cate
chism for proselytes. On the one hand, the existence of such a
work is purely hypothetical, and on the other, the first chapters of
the Didache exhibit a specific Christian character by reason of the
many phrases, turns of thought and reminiscences that they borrow
from the New Testament. Nor is there any sufficient reason to adopt
the hypothesis of a still older Christian Didache (Urdidache) that
was improved and enlarged in the work before us. With some ex
ceptions (cc. i, 3 — 2, i) the extant manuscript of the Didache re
presents, quite probably, its original form.

3. ITS HISTORY. In some of the churches of the East, particularly
those of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, the Didache was once highly
esteemed. Clement of Alexandria cites it as «Scripture» *; Athanasius
places it among writings suitable for catechumens alongside with some
books of the Old Testament 2 ; Eusebius places it among the apocrypha
of the New Testament, i. e. among those books that had wrongly been
placed by some in the canon3. The so-called Apostolic Church-
Ordinance, composed probably toward the end of the third century
in Egypt, contains (cc. 4 — 14) a description of the Two Ways, or rather

eiprtrat\ Strom., i. 20, 100.
xaAoL>/j.£>-q ttbv dnoffToAwv: Ep. festal, 39.

al Asyofisvat. dida/ai: Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 4.

§ 6. THE DIDACHE OR TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 2 1

of the Way of Life, in which it is easy to recognize a slight paraphrase
of the first four chapters of the Didache. Similarly, a more exten
sive overworking of the entire Didache is met with in the first part
of the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions (cc. I — 32), a
work that was very probably compiled about the beginning of the
fifth century in Syria. Among the Latins the work is first met with
in the pseudo-Cyprianic homily «Adversus aleatores» 1. There is still
extant an ancient Latin version of the first six chapters.

The editio princeps of the Didache is entitled : AIOGT/Y] TWV owSexa a~o-

OToXtoV , EX TOU tSpOJOAUpUTT/.OU yfclpoypacpoi) VUV 7:pU>TOV £7.6l8o}Jl£VY] [ASTO, TpO-

\z^rj\Livu>v xai urjpLstojJSwv . . . UTTG dHAoftsou Bpusvviou }JiYjTpoTcoXiTou Ntxo|jirj6£ia£.
'Ev KtovstavTivouTioXst, 1883 (cxlix. 75 pp.). The « Codex Hierosolymitanus» is
a parchment manuscript, written in 1056, probably in Palestine. In 1883
it was in the library of the Hospice of the Holy Sepulchre Church at
Constantinople, whence it was soon transferred to the library of the Greek
Patriarchate at Jerusalem. Those pages of the manuscript that contained
the Didache were photographed by y. Rendel Harris for his edition of
the text: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Baltimore and London,
1887. A lively interest was at once aroused, especially in England and
America, with the result that a rich and varied literature has grown
up about this work. Cf. F. X. Funk, Doctrina duodecim apostolorum,
Tubingen, 1887, pp. xlvi — lii, for the literature previous to that year2; a
lengthier list is found in Ph. Schaff, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
3. ed., New York, 1889, pp. 140 — 158, 297—320. Among the many edi
tions of the Didache those of Bryennios, Schaff, Funk, and Rendel Harris
are especially meritorious by reason of their wealth of information. See
A. Harnack, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel (Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur ii. i — 2), Leipzig, 1884, stereotyped
1893. All these editions contain, beside the text of the Didache, older
adaptations of the Doctrine of the Two Ways, especially the Apostolic
Church-Ordinance (entire or in part) and the first part of the seventh book
of the Apostolic Constitutions. An Arabic adaptation of t|he first six chapters
of the Didache, taken from a Coptic source, was discovered and published
by Z. E. Iselin and A. Heusler, Eine bisher unbekannte Version des ersten
Teiles der Apostellehre (Texte und Untersuchungen xiii. i), Leipzig, 1895.
Harnack followed up his larger edition with a smaller one, in which he
undertook to reproduce the supposed Jewish prototype of the Didache:
Die Apostellehre und die jiidischen beiden Wege, Leipzig, 1886, 2. ed.
1896. Contemporaneously with his edition of the Didache, Funk brought
out a new edition of the first volume of his « Opera Patrum apostolico-
rum» and included in it the newly-found text « Didache, sen Doctrina xii
Apostolorum». In a Munich manuscript of the eleventh century J. Schlecht
found an old Latin version of the first six chapters of the Didache; a
short fragment of the same (Did. i , i — 3 ; 2, 2 — 6) had already been
edited by B. Pez in 1723 from a Melk codex of the ninth or tenth cen
tury. Schlecht , Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel in der Liturgie der katho-
lischen Kirche, Freiburg, 1900; Id., Doctrina XII apostolorum, Freiburg,
1900. The literature of the subject is very copious; it may suffice to indi
cate several essays of Funk, written 1884—1897 on the date of the origin
of the Didache and on its relations to similar texts ; they may be found

1 In doctrinis apostolorum, c. 4.

2 This list has been brought -up to date in his new edition, Tubingen, 1901.

22 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, Paderborn, 1899, ii. 108 — 141 ;
cf. Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons und
der altkirchl. Literatur, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1884, iii. 278 — 319. A. Kra-
wiitzcky, Uber die sogen. Zwolfapostellehre, ihre hauptsachlichsten Quellen
und ihre erste Aufnahme, in Theol. Qnartalschrift (1884), Ixvi. 547 — 606.
K. Miinchen, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel, eine Schrift des i. jahrhun-
derts, in Zeitschrift fiir kath. Theologie (1886), x. 629-676. C. Taylor,
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, with Illustrations from the Talmud,
Cambridge, 1886. Id. , An Essay on the Theology of the Didache, ib.
1889. G. Wohlenberg , Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel in ihrem Verhaltnis
zum neutestamentlichen Schrifttum, Erlangen, 1888. J. M. Minasi , La
dottrina del Signore pei Dodici Apostoli bandita alle genti (translation,
notes and commentary), Rome, 1891. P. Savi, La «Dottrina degli Apo
stoli », ricerche critiche sull' origine del testo con una nota intorno al' eu-
caristia, Roma, 1893, reprinted in «Litteratura cristiana antica». C. H.
Hoole, The Didache, London, 1894. Studi critici del P. Paolo Savi barna-
bita raccolti e riordinati dal can. Fr. Bolese, Siena, 1899, 47 — 119. Osser-
vazioni sulla Didache degli Apostoli in Bessarione vol. ii (1897 — 1898),
12 — 17 vol. iii. U. Benigni , Didache coptica «duarum viarum» recensio
coptica monastica per arabicam versionem superstes, ib. vol. iii (1898 and
1899); iv. 311 — 329 (also in separate reprint). E. Hennecke, Die Grund-
schrift der Didache und ihre Rezensionen, in Zeitschrift fur die neutesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft (1901), ii. 58 — 72. F. X. Funk, Zur Didache, die
Frage nach der Grundschrift und ihren Rezensionen, in Theol. Quartalschr.
(1902), Ixxxiv, 73 — 88-, cf. R. Mariano, La dottrina dei Dodici Apostoli
e la critica storica in «I1 Cristianesimo nei primi secoli» (Scritti vari, iv),
Florence, 1902, 357 — 394. Liidwig , Zur Lehre vom Kirchenamte in der
Didache, in Hist.-polit. Blatter (1901), cxxviii. 732—739. P. Ladeuze,
L'Eucharistie et les repas communs des fideles dans la Didache, in
Revue de 1'Orient chretien (1902), vii. 341 — 359. W. Scherer , Der
Weinstock Davids (Did. 9, 2) im Lichte der Schrifterklarung betrachtet,
in Katholik (1903), i. 357 — 365. B. Labanca, La dottrina degli Apostoli
studiata in Italia, Roma, 1895, in Rivista italiana di nlosofia x, 1895. Th.
Schermann , Eine Elfapostelmoral oder die X-Rezension der beiden
Wege, Munich, 1902 (Veroffentlichungen aus dem kirchenhistor. Seminar
ii. 2). P. Batiffol, L'Eucharistie dans la. Didache, in Revue biblique
(1905), pp. 58 — 67. Bigg , Notes on the Didache, in Journal of Theol.
Studies (July 1904), v. 579 — 589. J. V. Bartlet , (art.) «Didache» in
Hastings' Diet, of the Bible (extra vol.) (1904), pp. 438 — 451.

§ 7. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas.

I . ITS CONTENTS. The Letter current under the name of St. Bar
nabas gives the names neither of the author nor of the recipients;
they are called «sons and daughters» (c. I, i) or «brothers» (cc. 2, 10;
3, 6, and passim} or « children » (cc. 7, I ; 9, 7). Though the author
of the Letter had preached the Gospel among those to whom it is
addressed, he nowhere indicates their dwelling-place. Apart from the
exordium (c. i) and the conclusion (c. 21) the Letter is divided into
two parts of very unequal length (cc. 2 — 17 and 18—20). The first
part of the Letter undertakes to appreciate properly the value and
the meaning of the Old Testament. The author is not satisfied
with the teaching of the New Testament, that the Old has been an-

§ 7- THE SO-CALLED EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 23

nulled and the Mosaic Law abrogated. He goes farther and asserts
that the Old Testament was never valid, that Judaism with its pre
cepts and ceremonies was not ordained of God, but was a work
of human folly and diabolical deceit. Deceived by the devil, the
Jews had understood the Law in the literal sense, whereas they
should have interpreted it, not according to the letter but according
to the spirit. God asked not for external sacrifices, but for a con
trite heart (c. 2) ; not for corporal fasting, but for good works (c. 3) ; not
for circumcision of the flesh, but for that of the ears and the heart (c. 9) ;
not for abstinence from the flesh of certain animals, but from the
sins that are represented by these animals (c. 10). In truth, the
Old Testament in its entirety was a mysterious foretelling of the New
Testament; throughout its pages are everywhere suggested or prefigured
the truths of Christian revelation or facts of the Gospel history.
Thus, in the circumcision of the three hundred and eighteen servants
of Abraham (Gen. xvii. 27; cf. xiv. 14) there is a mystical allusion
to the death of our Lord on the cross: 18 = cy = Jesus, and 300
= r = the Cross (c. 9). In the eighteenth chapter the author passes
to « another knowledge and doctrine ». He describes minutely two
opposite Ways, the Way of Light (c. 19) and the Way of Darkness
(c. 20). It is highly probable, as has been already observed (§ 6. 2),
that the introduction to the Didache was here his source and model.
There can be no doubt of the unity and homogeneity of the Letter
in the form in which it has come down to us : the hypotheses of
retouches and interpolations, suggested by Heydecke and Weiss, are
without foundation. The author's literary incapacity is evident, a fact
that explains the absence of connected and consecutive thought.

2. ITS NON- AUTHENTICITY. With one voice Christian antiquity
indicated as author of this work St. Barnabas, the travelling com
panion and fellow-labourer of the Apostle Paul ; he is himself called an
Apostle (Acts xiv. 4, 14; I Cor. ix. 5 f; cf. Gal. ii. 9). The oldest
writer in whom are found express citations from the Letter is Clement
of Alexandria; he frequently attributes the authorship of it to St. Barna
bas1. This was also the belief of Origen2. The latter even calls it
a xa$o/>ix~q ImoroXfy probably because even then it bore no special
address. Both of these Alexandrine doctors held the Letter in
very great veneration. Eusebius places it 3 among the non-canonical
writings, the vofta. or flyrdefofjisvat fpa(po.i\ St. Jerome among the apo
cryphal writings *. Both, however, seem firmly persuaded of the author
ship of St. Barnabas. In general, throughout the patristic literature
there is no expression to the contrary. But modern opinion judges
differently. There may be yet an occasional defender of the authorship

1 Strom., ii. 6, 31 ; 7, 35. 2 Contra Celsum, i. 63.

3 Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 4; vi. 13, 6.

4 De viris illustr., c. 6 ; Comm. in Ezech. ad 43, \<).

24 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

of St. Barnabas, but the great majority of scholars have declared the
Letter non-authentic. A very decisive argument is its teaching concerning
the Old Testament; it is quite opposed to the teaching of the Apostles,
especially of St. Paul, and cannot therefore be attributed to St. Bar
nabas. Moreover, the indications of the author concerning the epoch
in which he lived do not permit us to believe in the authenticity of
this Letter. It is sufficiently certain that Barnabas did not survive
the destruction of Jerusalem (70), a date that for the author of
the Letter is already in the past (c. 16). It is also an undoubted
fact that St. Barnabas was no longer alive in the time of the Emperor
Nerva, when, according to the most approved conjectures, the Letter
was composed.

3. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. Two passages in the Letter
are relied on to determine with some precision the date of its com
position. In one (c. 4) the author maintains the proximity of the end
of the world. This will come about in the time of an eleventh king
who, according to the prophecy of Daniel (vil. 8, 24) has humiliated
three of the ten kings who preceded him, and that, adds the author
of the Letter, at the same time (utp iV c. 4. 4, 5). It seems certain
that the time of the reign of this eleventh king was the period in which
the Letter was composed. But who is this eleventh king? According
to the most plausible opinion (Hilgenfeld, Funk) it is the Emperor
Nerva (96—98). His three predecessors belong to the same family,
and in and with Domitian (the last representative of the family of the
Flavii) all three in a certain sense may be said to have been dethroned.
It is true that, counting in Augustus, Nerva is not the eleventh but
the twelfth emperor; we may admit, however, that the author has
torgotten in his enumeration one of the three ephemeral emperors
(Galba, Otto, or Vitellius), predecessors of Vespasian, and who were
not all recognized in every part of the empire. The second passage con
cerning the Temple (c. 16) cannot be relied on for chronological pur
poses. The words «now the Temple is being rebuilt » (c. 16. 4)
have been recently interpreted by Harnack of the building of
the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus under Hadrian (about 130) and
on the site of the Temple of Jerusalem. It is highly probable,
however, from the context, that the author is speaking not of a
pagan temple of stone, but of a spiritual temple in the hearts of the
(nvevpaTtxbQ vauo, o!xodofjto6fjtevo£ rw xopiw , c. 16. 10). The
place of composition is usually understood to 'be Alexandria; the
allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures to which the author is very
much addicted was a special characteristic of that city. The Letter's
immediate circle of readers might well be a mixed community of
Judaeo-Christians and Gentile converts in the vicinity of Alexandria.

4. MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS. The « Letter of Barnabas» is found com
plete ID two manuscripts. The older and more important is the Greek biblical

§ 8. CLEMENT OF ROME. 25

codex of the fourth century, discovered in 1859, by C. Tischendorf, and
known as the Codex Sinaiticus. It contains, as an appendix to the biblical
books, the Letter of Barnabas and a part of the Shepherd of Hermas.
The other manuscript is the Codex Hierosolymitanus of the year 1056, dis
covered by Ph. Bryennios (fol. 33r — 5iv). There are also several manu
scripts of this Letter that come down from a single archetype, but in
which are lacking the first four chapters and half of the fifth: their text
begins (c. 5. 7) with the words TOV Xaov TOV xaivov. An additional means of
controlling the text of the Letter is found in an old Latin version, very faulty
however and incomplete, preserved in a St. Petersburg codex of the ninth
or tenth century; it contains the text of cc. 1 — 17. The Letter was
first printed, together with the Letters of St. Ignatius, by J. Ussher, the
Anglican archbishop of Armagh, in 1642. Cf. J. H. Backhouse, The Editio
Princeps of the Epistle of Barnabas by Archbishop Ussher, Oxford, 1883.
A second and separate edition was published by the Maurist Benedictine
Hugo Menard, or rather, since his death in 1644 prevented his issue
of the work, by his confrere J. L. d'Achtry, Paris, 1645. A third edition
that included the Ignatian Letters and was based on a wider collation of
manuscripts, was prepared by the Leyden philologian J. Voss, Amsterdam,
1646, 2. ed. London, 1680. Many of the later editions are indicated (§ 4)
among the editions of the Apostolic Fathers: J. B. Cotelier, Paris, 1672;
Antwerp, 1698; Amsterdam 1724 (reprinted in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr.
t. i; Migne, PG. ii.) ; C. J. Hefele, Tubingen 1839, 4- ed- l855; A.M.
Dressel, Leipzig, 1857, 2. ed. 1863; A. Hilgenfeld, ib. 1866, 2. ed. 1877.
O. von Gebhardt and A. Harnack, ib. 1875, 2- ed- l878i ^r- X. Funk,
Tubingen, 1878, 1887, 1901. — Translations of and works on the Apostolic
Fathers are mentioned in § 4. Among the special studies on the Letter
of Barnabas cf. C. J. Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas,
aufs neue untersucht, iibersetzt und erklart, Tubingen, 1840. y. Kayser,
Uber den sog. Barnabasbrief, Paderborn, 1866. J. G. Midler, Erklarung
des Barnabasbriefes, Leipzig, 1869. Chr. J. Riggenbach, Der sogen. Brief
des Barnabas, Ubersetzung, Bemerkungen, Basel, 1873. C. Heydecke, Disser-
tatio qua Barnabae Epistola interpolata demonstratur , Brunsvigi, 1874.
O. Braunsberger, Der Apostel Barnabas. Sein Leben und der ihm beigelegte
Brief, wissenschaftlich gewurdigt, Mainz, 1876. W. Cunningham, The Epistle
of S. Barnabas. A Dissertation including a Discussion of its date and
authorship, London, 1877. Two dissertations by Funk, on the date of
authorship of the Epistle, are reprinted in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhand-
lungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 77 — 108. C. Fr. Arnold, Quaestionum
de compositione et fontibus Barnabae epistolae capita nonnulla (Dissert,
inaug.), Regiomonti, 1886. J. Weifl, Der Barnabasbrief, kritisch untersucht,
Berlin, 1888. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (1897),
ii. 410 — 428. A. Ladeuze, L'fipitre de Barnabe, in Revue d'histoire ecclesia-
stique (1900), i. 31 — 40, 212 — 225. On the formal or artistic execution of
the Epistle cf. T. M. Wehofer, Untersuchungen ziir altchristlichen Epistolo-
graphie, Vienna, 1901. A. van VeldJwizen , De Brief van Barnabas, Gro-
ningen, 1901. A. Di Pauli, Kritisches zum Barnabasbrief, in Histor.-polit.
Blatter (1902), cxxxi 318—324. J. Tunnel, La lettre de Barnabe', in
Annales de philos. chretienne, 1903, juillet, 387 — 398.

§ 8. Clement of Rome.

I. ins LIFE. According to St. Irenseus1, he was the third successor
of St. Peter in the Roman See. The later opinion that Clement

1 Adv. haer., iii. 3, 3.

26 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

was the immediate successor of St. Peter * is probably derived from the
so-called Clementine Literature (§ 26, 3) and certainly is unhistorical.
Eusebius himself looked on Clement as the fourth pope, and reckoned
his pontificate at nine years (92- — 101), from the twelfth year of
Domitian to the third of Trajan 2. For his early life we are reduced
to conjecture. The Clementine statement that he belonged to the
imperial family of the Flavii deserves no credence. Recent writers
have wisely abandoned the hypothesis, closely related to the Cle
mentine view, that Clement is identical with the consul Titus Flavius
Clemens, a cousin of Domitian, put to death (95 or 96) as guilty
of atheism and Jewish practices, i. e. very probably as a Christian 3.
The general impression produced by his Epistle to the Corinthians
seems favourable to the thesis that Clement was of Jewish, not
Gentile, parentage. The relatively very late narratives of his martyr
dom can hardly claim to be more than poetry and saga. Origen4
and Eusebius 5 identify our writer with that Clement whom St. Paul
names and praises as one of his « fellow-labourers » 6.

The «testimonia» of antiquity concerning Clement are discussed at
length in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part I, London, 1890, i. 14—103,
104—115, 201 — 345. For his place in the catalogue of popes see Duchesne,
Liber Pontificalis, I, Paris, 1886, Ixxi. — Ixxxiii, and for the consul Titus
Flavius Clemens, Fr. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Unter-
suchungen, Paderborn, 1897, i. 308 — 329.

2. THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. Clement is the author
of a long Letter to the Christian community at Corinth, that has
reached us in the Greek original and in a Latin and a Syriac version.
In that city a few bold and presumptuous men (c. i, I, cf. 47. 6)
had risen against their ecclesiastical superiors and driven them from
their offices; Clement desires to put an end to the confusion. In
the exordium of his Letter he depicts in lively colours the former
flourishing state of the Church of Corinth ; after a brief notice of the
very deplorable actual condition of the community, he goes on to
the first part of the Letter (cc. 4 — 36). It contains instruction and
exhortation of a general character, warns the Corinthians against
envy and jealousy, recommends humility and obedience, and appeals
continually to the types and examples of these virtues offered by
the Old Testament. The second part (cc. 36 — 61) deals more
directly with the situation at Corinth. He treats here of the eccle
siastical hierarchy and exhibits the necessity of subjection to the
legitimate ecclesiastical authorities. In conclusion (cc. 62 — 65) he

1 St. Jer., De viris illustr., c. 15.

2 Hist, eccl., iii. 15, 34; cf. Chron. ad an. Abrah. 2 no.

3 Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom., Ixvii. 14; cf. Suet., Domit., c. 15.

4 Comm. in Jo., vi. 36. 5 Hist, eccl., iii. 15.
6 Phil. iv. 3.

§ 8. CLEMENT OF ROME. 27

summarizes what he has already said. Long ago Photius recognized1
the simplicity and clearness of his style. The name of Clement does
not appear in the Letter; it presents itself, formally, as a writing of
the Christian community at Rome. There can be no doubt, however,
that it is the work of Clement, who wrote as the head and represen
tative of the Roman community 2. Quite decisive are the words of
Dionysius of Corinth in his reply to a letter of Pope Soter 3 written
about 170: «To-day we have celebrated the Lord's holy day, in
which we have read your Letter. From it, whenever we read it,
we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former
Letter which was written to us by Clement» : COQ xal rqy rcporipav
Tjtuv dia KkrjiJLZVToc, fpayzlaav, sc. imffToj^Vf Without naming him,
St. Polycarp quotes Clement in his own Letter to the Philippians.
The Letter of Clement was probably composed towards the end of
the reign of Domitian (Si — 96) or the beginning of that of Nerva
(96 — 98). From the lost work of Hegesippus, Eusebius learned that
the agitation and discord at Corinth which gave occasion to the
Letter, arose in the time of Domitian4. In the history of Christian
doctrine this communication to the Church of Corinth is very import
ant as a «de facto » witness to the primacy of the Roman Church.
The hypothesis that the Corinthians solicited the intervention of the
Roman Church is incompatible with certain passages in the Letter
(cc. i. i ; 47, 6 — 7). It may be added that the primitive authority
of that Church shines out all the more clearly if it be accepted
that it dealt unasked with the affairs of the Corinthian Church, in
the conviction that the restoration of order was a duty incumben
upon it.

The Letter to the Corinthians, and the so-called Second Letter to the
same, have come down to us in two Greek manuscripts, the Codex Hiero-
solymitanus of 1056 (§ 6, 4; 7, 4) and the so-called Codex Alexandrinus,
the latter being the well-known fifth-century biblical codex of the British
Museum at London. In the latter manuscript the text of both Letters,
particularly that of the second, has reached us in a very imperfect condition.
The Codex Alexandrinus has been reproduced in photographic facsimile:
Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus, vol. IV. New Testament and Cle
mentine Epistles, London, 1879. A similar photographic reproduction
of the text of Clement as found in the Codex Hierosolymitanus (fol.
5iv — 76r) may be seen in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part I (1890),
i. 421 — 474. A very old and very literal Latin version of the first Letter
was edited by G. Morin from a codex of the eleventh century, Mared-
sous, 1894 (Anecdota Maredsolana, ii). Cf. A. Harnack in Sitzungsberichte
der kgl. preufi. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1894, pp. 261 — 273,
601 — 621; E. Wolff lin in Archiv fiir latein. Lexikographie und Grammatik
(1894), ix. 81 — 100 ; H. Kihn in Theol. Quartalschrift (1894), Ixxvi.

1 Bibl. cod., p. 126.

2 Ens., Hist, eccl., iii. 38, I. St. Jer., De viris illustr., c. 15.

3 Ens., ib., iv. 23, n. 4 Ib., iii. 16; iv. 22, I.

28 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

540 — 549. An ancient Syriac version of both Letters is met with in a
Cambridge manuscript of 1170; the more important readings were publish
ed by Light f o ot , St. Clement of Rome, an Appendix, London 1877,
pp. 397 — 470; cf. Id., The Apostolic Fathers, parti (1890), i. 129 — 146.
The complete text was published by R. L. Bensly, or rather after his death,
by R. H. Kennet, London, 1899. The editio princeps of both Letters is
that of P. Junius (Young), Oxford, 1633, 2. ed. 1637, whence Cotelier
took them for his edition of the Patres aevi apostolici, Paris, 1672. Since
then they are found in every edition of the Apostolic Fathers (§ 4). Philo-
theos Bryennios was the first to publish from the Codex Hierosol. the full
text of both Letters. The most valuable edition is that of Lightfoot (f 1889),
in the second edition of the first part of his Apostolic Fathers published
at London, 1890, after his death. The first Letter was also edited by
R. Knopf, Leipzig, 1899 (Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, v. i.) and
in the first volume of the first series of the Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum
edited by S. Vizzini, Rome, 1901. German translations of both Letters
have been published recently by Karger, Schalz, and Mayer (§ 4). Among
the English translations see that of Lightfoot , St. Clement of Rome, An
Appendix (1877), 345 — 390; cf. The Apostolic Fathers, i (1890), ii. 271 — 316.
From the literature on the First Epistle to the Corinthians we quote : R. A,
Lipsius , De dementis Romani epistola ad Corinthios priore disquisitio,
Leipzig, 1855. A. Briill , Der erste Brief des Clemens von Rom an die
Korinther und seine geschichtliche Bedeutung, Freiburg, 1883. W. Wrede,
Untersuchungen zum ersten Clemensbrief, Gottingen, 1891. L. Lemme, Das
Judenchristentum der Urkirche und der Brief des Clemens Romanus, in Neue
Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theol. (1892), i. 325—480. G. Courtois, L'fipitre
de Clement de Rome (These), Montauban, 1894. J. P. Bang, Studien iiber
Clemens Romanus, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1898), Ixxi. 431 — 486.
Cf. Ad. Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen, xx, new series, v. 3 (1890),
70 — 80. B. Heurtier, Le dogme de la Trinite dans 1'Epitre de St. Clement
de Rome et le Pasteur d'Hermas (These), Lyon, 1890. A. Stahl, Patristische
Untersuchungen, i. Der erste Brief des romischen Clemens, Leipzig, 1901.
W. Scherer , Der erste Clemensbrief an die Korinther nach seiner Bedeu
tung fur die Glaubenslehre der kathol. Kirche am Atisgang des i. Jahrhun-
derts, Regensburg, 1902. For_the style and diction of the Letter cf. Wehofer
op. cit. (§ 7, 4). E. Dor sch, Die Gottheit Jesu bei Clemens von Rom, in
Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (1902), xxvi. 466—491. J. Tunnel, Etude sur
la Lettre de St. Clement de Rome aux Corinthiens, in Annales de philos.
chretienne (1903), Mai, 144—160. A. van Veldhuyzen, De tekst van z. g.
eersten Brief van Clemens aari de Korinthiers, in Theol. Studien (1903), i.
i — 34. B. Schweitzer, Glaube und Werke bei Clemens Romanus, in Theol.
Quartalschrift (1903), Ixxxv. 417—437, 547—575-

3. THE SO-CALLED SECOND LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. In
the manuscripts (Greek and Syriac), likewise in the printed editions,
the Letter to the Corinthians is followed by another work, usually called
the Second Letter to the Corinthians. The character of its contents is
very general: the Christian must lead a life worthy of his vocation,
must prefer the promises of the future to the joys of the present, must
be conscious of the necessity of doing penance etc. It is first mention
ed by Eusebius^ as purporting to be the Second Letter of Clement.
Since the fifth century it circulated among the Greeks and Syrians as

1 Hist, eccl., iii. 38, 4; cf. St. Jer., De viris illustr., c. 15.

§ 8. CLEMENT OF ROME. 2Q

the Second Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Eusebius himself had
some suspicion that it could not be the work of Clement. It is now
generally admitted that internal and external criteria make it clear that
the document belongs to the middle of the second century, if not to
a somewhat later date. When the full text was published in 1875, it
became evident that it was not a letter, but a sermon (cf. cc. 15. 2;
17. 3; 19. i). This fact is enough to refute a former hypothesis,
recently defended by Harnack, that in this writing we possess the
Letter of Pope Soter (166—174) to the community of Corinth, other
wise known to us only through the fragments of the reply of Dio-
nysius, bishop of that city1. It is probable, moreover, that this
sermon was preached, not at Rome but at Corinth (c. 7. I — 3).

For the manuscript-tradition, editions, and versions of the so-called Se
cond Letter to the Corinthians, see above, p. 26. H. Hagemann , Uber
den zweiten Brief des Clemens von Rom, in Theol. Quartalschrift (1861),
xliii. 509 — 531. Ad. Harnack, Uber den sog. zweiten Brief des Clemens
an die Korinther, in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. (1876 — 1877), i. 264 — 283,
329 — 364. Id., Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, ii. i 438 — 450. Funk, Der
sog. zweite Clemensbrief, in Theol. Quartalschr., Ixxxiv. (1902) 345 — 364.
R. Knopf, Die Anagnose zum zweiten Clemensbriefe, in Zeitschrift fiir die
neutestamentl. Wissensch. 1902, iii. 266 — 279.

4. THE TWO LETTERS TO VIRGINS. Two Letters in Syriac have
come down to us under the name of Clement. Both are address
ed to Virgins, i. e. to unmarried persons or ascetics of both sexes;
their purpose is to demonstrate the excellence of the state of vir
ginity, and also to furnish rules of conduct whereby to avoid the
perils of that condition. Cotterill discovered (1884) in the « Pandects »
of the Palestinian monk Antiochus (c. 620) lengthy fragments of a
Greek text of both Letters. There is every probability that the Greek
text is the original from which the Syriac version was made. The
earliest traces of the Letters are in Epiphanius -. Their evident op
position to the «Subintroductae» makes it probable that they were
written in the third century, perhaps in Syria or Palestine. It is
clear from Epiphanius (1. c.) that in the fourth century they were
held there in great esteem. As the conclusion is lacking to the
first and the introduction to the second, it is very probable that
originally the two Letters were one document.

The Syriac text of the two Letters was found by J. ?. Wetstein in a
Peschitto-Codex of the New Testament, of the year 1470, and edited by him
at Leyden in 1752 with a Latin version. A reprint of the Syriac text of
Wetstein is found in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., i., and in Migne , PG., i.
P. Zingerle published a German translation at Vienna, 1827. The Syriac
text was re-edited, with a Latin version, by J. T/i. Beelcn, Louvain, 1856.
This Latin translation is found, with corrections, in Funk, Opp. Patr.
Apostol., ii. i — 27. Cf. J. M. Cotterill, Modem Criticism and Clement's

1 FMS., Hist, eccl., iv. 23, 10 — 12; ii. 25, 8.

- Haer., xxx. 15; cf. St. Jer., Adv. Jovin., i. 12.

3O FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

Epistles to Virgins (first printed 1756) or their Greek version newly dis
covered in Antiochus Palaestinensis, Edinburgh, 1884. Ad. Harnack, Die
pseudo-clementinischen Briefe De virginitate und die Entstehung des Monch-
tums, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch., Berlin,
1891, pp. 361 — 385. D. Volter, Die Apostolischen Vater neu untersucht.
Part i. : Clemens, Hennas, Barnabas. Leyden, 1904. -

§ 9. Ignatius of Antioch.

I. TRADITION OF THE SEVEN EPISTLES. - - Ignatius, called also
Theophorus, the second or (if we include St. Peter) the third bishop
of Antioch1, was exposed to wild beasts at Rome2 under Trajan,
i. e. between 98 and ii/3. He was taken from Antioch to Rome
in the custody of soldiers, and on the way wrote seven Letters to
the Christians of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia,
Smyrna, and to Polycarp, bishop of the latter city. The collection
of these Letters that lay before Eusebius* has been lost; but later
collections of Ignatian Letters have been preserved, in which much
scoria is mixed with the pure gold. The oldest of these, usually
called the Long Recension, contains seven genuine and six spurious
Letters, but even the genuine ones do not appear in their original
form; they are all more or less enlarged and interpolated. The spurious
Letters are those of a certain Maria of Cassobola to Ignatius, his reply,
and Letters from him to the people of Tarsus, Philippi, Antioch, and
to the deacon Hero of Antioch. This recension is extant in the original
Greek, and in an ancient Latin version. It seems certain that we
owe to one and the same hand the forgery of the spurious Letters,
the interpolation of the genuine ones, and the union of all in the Long
Recension. The forger was an Apollinarist, for he twice denies that
the Redeemer possessed a human soul (Philipp. v. 2. Philad., vi. 6).
According to the researches of Funk, he is very probably identical with
the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions that were put together in
Syria early in the fifth century. Later on, a «Laus Heronis» was added
to this collection, i. e. a panegyric of Ignatius in the form of a prayer
to him made by Hero, very probably written in Greek; it has reached
us only in a Latin and a Coptic (Lower Egyptian or Memphitic) text.
Somewhere between this Long Recension of the Ignatian Letters
and the collection known to Eusebius is a third collection that has
also reached us in Greek and Latin. It contains the seven genuine
Letters in their original form, and also the six spurious ones, with the
exception of the Letter to the Philippians; it has been recently called
by Funk, and not improperly, the Mixed Collection. In this collection
the (genuine) Letter to the Romans is incorporated with the so-called

1 Orig., Horn. vi. in Luc. ; Eus., Hist, eccl., iii. 22.

2 Orig., ib. ; Eus., ib. iii. 36, 3.

3 Eus., Chron. post an. Abr. 2123.

4 Hist, eccl., iii. 36, 4 ff.

§ 9- IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH. 3!

Martyrium Colbercinum, a document that closes the collection, and
pretends to be the account given by an eye-witness of the martyrdom of
St. Ignatius. Closely related to this collection is another that has reached
us only in Armenian; it too has the seven genuine and the six spurious
letters. Its original is a Syriac text now lost. Similarly, there has
been preserved in Syriac an abbreviated recension of the three genuine
Letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, and to Polycarp. Finally we
must mention four Letters preserved in Latin : two from Ignatius to
the Apostle John, and one to the Blessed Virgin, with her reply.
These four Letters may be traced back to the twelfth century; very
probably they are of Western origin.

It is clear from the preceding that the authentic text of the seven
genuine Letters must be gathered from the Mixed Recension ; whose Greek
original is represented in a single codex that is, moreover, incomplete -
the Mediceo-Laurentianus of the eleventh century, preserved at Florence.
The Letter to the Romans is lacking in this manuscript, but is found (as
a part of the Martyrium Colbertinum) in the tenth century Codex Colberti-
nus (Paris). Two other codices are now known, but they present no sub
stantial variation; cf. Funk, Patres Apostolici, 2. ed., torn. ii. Ixxii sq.
However, even the ancient Latin translation in the Mixed Recension may
lay claim to the value of a Greek text. In addition, the text of the
Syro-Armenian collection and that of the Long Recension merit conside
ration. There are several Greek codices of the latter; among which the
Codex Monacensis (olim Augustanus) of the tenth or eleventh century
must be regarded as the chief. J. Voss was the first to edit the original
text of the genuine Letters, with the exception of that to the Romans,
Amsterdam, 1646. Th. Ruinart published the text of the latter from the
Martyrium Colbertinum, Paris, 1689. The text in Migne, PG., v. 625 — 728
is taken from Hefele, Opp. Patr. apostol. (3. ed. Tiibingen, 1847). The
most recent and best editions are those of Zahn, Ignatii et Polycarpi
epistulae, martyria, fragmenta (Patr. apostol. opp. Rec. O. dc Gebhardt,
Harnack , Zahn, fasc. ii), Leipzig, 1876; Funk, Opp. Patr. apostol., i.,
Tiibingen 1878, 1887, 1901; Ligktfoot , The Apostolic Fathers, Part ii:
St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, London 1885, 1889, 2 vol. Lightfoot's
edition presents most fully all ancient ecclesiastical tradition concerning
the Letters. (Ignatii Antiocheni et Polycarpi Smyrnaei epistulae et mar
tyria, edidit et adnotationibns instruxit A. Hilgenfdd , Berlin, 1902.
Cf. also Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulae in the Bibliotheca SS. Patrum of
Vizzini, series I, vol. II, Roma, 1902.) See § 4 for the latest English and
German versions of the genuine Letters. There is an English version in
Lightfoot, ib. ii. 539—570, and in J. H. Srawley, London, 1900, 2 vol.
A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ignatiusbriefe und die neueste Verteidigung ihrer Echt-
heit, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theologie (1903), xlvi. 171 — 194. Id.,
ib. 499—505. T. Nicklin, Three Passages in SS. Ignatius and Polycarp,
in Journal of Theological Studies (1902 — 1903), iv. 443. A. N. Jannaris,
An Ill-used Passage of St. Ignatius (ad Philad. viii. 2), in Classical Review
(1903), xviii. 24- — 35. J. Drdseke , Fin Testimonium Ignatianum, in Zeit-
schrift fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1903), xlvi, 506 — 512. The Greek text
of the Long Recension was first edited by V. Hartung (Frid), Dillingen,
1557. The text of Migne , op. cit. v. 729—941 is taken from Cotelerius,
Patres aevi apost. t. ii. For new editions cf. Zahn, op. cit. pp. 174 — 296;
Funk, op. cit. ii. 46 — 213; Lightfoot, op. cit. ii. 709 — 857.

32 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

For the author of the Long Recension, his theological tendencies, and
his identity with the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, see Funk,
Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen, Rottenburg, 1891, pp. 281—355. Id.,
Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 347
to 359 i C' Hohhey , in Theol. Quartalschr. (1898), Ixxx. 380 — 390;
A. Amelungk, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1899), xlii. 508 — 581;
(to the contrary: F. X. Funk, Theologie und Zeit des Pseudo-Ignatius, in
Theol. Quartalschr. [1901], Ixxxiii. 411 — 426, and Id., Le Pseudo-Ignace,
in Revue d'hist. ecclesiast. [1900], i. 61 — 65). A. Sta/it, Patristische Unter
suchungen, II: Ignatius von Antiochien, Leipzig, 1901. The Latin text of
«Laus Heronis» is in Migne, PL. v. 945 — 948; cf. Zahn p. 297; Funk ii.
214; Light/cot ii. 893. Light foot gives the prayer in a Lower Egyptian
or Memphitic version (p. 88if.), and attempts a reconstruction of the
Greek text (p. 893 f.). For the Latin version of the Long Recension see
Zahn p. 175 — 296; Funk ii. 47 — 213. The Latin version of the Mixed
Recension is in Funk,, Die Echtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe aufs neue
verteidigt, Tubingen, 1883, p. 151 — 204, and in Lightfoot ii. 597 — 652.
P. de Lagarde published both Latin versions at Gottingen, 1882. The
Lightfoot edition contains (ii. 659 — 687) the Syriac abbreviated recension
of the three Letters to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, first
made known in 1845 ^7 ^ Cureton; it also contains some stray Syriac
fragments of the genuine Letters in their original form, edited by W. Wright.
For earlier editions and recensions of these Syriac texts see E. Nestle,
Syrische Grammatik (Berlin, 1888), ii. 54, s. v. Ignatius Antiochenus. The
Armenian version, derived from the Syriac, was first published at Con
stantinople in 1783. It also appeared at Leipzig in 1849, in y. H. Peter-
manris edition of the Ignatian Letters. The four Letters extant in Latin
only are found in Migne, PL., v. 941 — 946; Zahn pp. 297 — 300; Funk
pp. 214 — 217; Lightfoot, ii. 653 — 656. (Ad. Harnack , Zu Ignatius und
Polycarp, in Miscellen [Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, v. 3]
[Leipzig, 1900], pp. 80 — 86.)

2. CONTENTS OF THE LETTERS. — On his way to martyrdom Ignatius
probably embarked at Seleucia for some port in Cilicia or Pamphylia;
thence, as his Letters bear witness, he was taken by land through
Asia Minor. At Smyrna there was a somewhat lengthy halt, and he
met there the envoys from several Christian communities of Asia Minor
come to express their veneration for the confessor of the faith. To
the representatives of Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles, Ignatius gave
Letters for those communities, in which, after making known his gra
titude, he warned them to beware of heretics (Judaizers and Docetae,
or rather, perhaps, Judaizing Docetae). He also exhorts them to be
joyfully submissive to the ecclesiastical authorities. «Be ye careful to
do all things in divine concord flv opowia rou tisouj. This, because
the bishop presides in the place of God, 'and the priests are as the
senate of the Apostles, and the deacons . . . have confided to them
the ministry of Jesus Christ » (Magn., 6. i). «Let all reverence the
deacons as Jesus Christ, and also the bishop ; for he is the image of
the Father, but the priests as the senate of God and the college
of the Apostles. Without these (ecclesiastical superiors) one cannot
speak of a church » (Trail, 3. i). A fourth Letter was sent by Ignatius

§ 9- IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH. 33

from Smyrna to the Christians ,of Rome, to induce them to abandon
all attempts to prevent the execution of his death-sentence. «I fear
that your love will cause me a damage » (i. 2). «For I shall not
have such another occasion to enter into the possession of God» (2. i).
«I am the wheat of God, and I must be ground by the teeth of
wild beasts that I may become the pure bread of Christ» (4. i).
The preamble of this Letter offers many difficulties. However, when
he calls the Roman community (ixxtyaia) the npoxa&yplvy TTJQ dfaTrqe,
it is clear that these words do not signify « first in charity » or in the
exercise of love, but rather « presiding over the society of love », i. e.
the entire Church. The word d-fairy often signifies in Ignatius the
entire community of Christians. - - From Smyrna he went to Troas
where he was met by a messenger of the Church of Antioch with
the news that the persecution of the Christians had ceased in that
city. From Troas he wrote to the Christians of Philadelphia and
Smyrna, and also to Polycarp, the bishop of the latter city. In the first
two Letters he expresses his thanks for the evidences of their love,
recommends the sending of messengers to congratulate those of Antioch
on the restoration of peace, and exhorts and warns them against the
heretical ideas already mentioned. «I cried out (at Philadelphia) with
a loud voice, with the voice of God : hold fast to the bishop, to
the presbytery, to the deacons» (Philad., 7. i). « Wherever the bishop
is, there let the people be, as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the
Catholic Church» (Smyrn., 8. 2; it is here that we first meet with the
words « Catholic Church » in the sense of the entire body of the
faithful). Ignatius meant to request the other communities of Asia
Minor to express, by messenger or letter, their sympathies with the
Christians of Antioch, but was prevented by an unexpected and hasty
departure from Troas; he therefore asks Polycarp to appeal in his
name to those communities of Asia. From Troas he \vent to Neapolis,
crossing on his way Macedonia and Illyria. It was probably at Dyr-
rhachium (Durazzo), or at Apollonia, that he began his sea-voyage.
From Brindisi he travelled afoot to Rome, where according to the
unanimous evidence of antiquity he reached the goal of his desire.
His literary remains are the outpouring of a pastoral heart, aflame
with a consuming love for Jesus Christ and His Church. The style
is original and extremely vivacious, the expression sonorous and often
incorrect, while the strong emotions of the writer interfere frequently
with the ordinary forms of expression. Very frequently he reminds
us of certain epistles of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Th. Dreher, S. Ignatii episc. Antioch. de Christo Deo doctrina (Progr.),
Sigmaringen, 1877. J. Nirschl , Die Theologie des hi. Ignatius, Mainz,
1880. y. H. Newman, The Theology of St. Ignatius, in Hist. Sketches I
(London, 1890), v. 222 — 262. E. Freiherr v. d. Goltz, Ignatius von An-
tiochien als Christ und Theologe, Leipzig, 1894 (Texte und Untersuchungen,

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. •}

34 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

xii. 3). E. Bruston , Ignace d'Antioche, ses epitres, sa theologie, Paris,
1897. The term KpoxafhjjievT) TTJ* aya-^c, in the inscription of the Letter to
the Romans, is discussed by Ad. Harnack , in Sitzungsberichte der kgl.
prenft. Akad. der Wissensch. (Berlin, 1896), in — 131; J. Chapman, in
Revue Bene'dictine (1896), xiii. 385 — 400; Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche
Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (Paderborn, 1897), i. i — 23. (Cf. also
the superficial and antiquated sketch of R. Mariano, II Primato del
Pontefice romano istituzione dtvina ? and L' Epistola ai Romani d' Ignazio
d' Antiochia, in his II Cristianesimo nei primi tre secoli [Scritti vari, iv — v.],
Firence, 1902, pp. 390 — 403.)

3. AUTHENTICITY. — For centuries the authenticity of the Ignatian
Letters has been disputed. The successive discovery and publication
of the collections and recensions described above caused the question
to pass through many phases, while the incomparable value of the
evidence that the Letters, if authentic, give concerning the constitu
tion and organization of the primitive Christian communities continually
fed the flame of discussion. Although it cannot be said that there
is at present an absolute harmony of opinion, the end of the contro
versy is at hand, since even the principal non-Catholic scholars, Zahn,
Lightfoot, Harnack, unreservedly maintain that the Letters are
authentic. The evidence for their authenticity is simply overwhelming.
Irenaeus himself refers to a passage of the Letter to the Romans
(c. 4. i) in the following words1: «Quemadmodum quidam de nostris
dixit propter martyrium in Deum adiudicatus ad bestias». The ro
mance of Lucian of Samosata, De morte Peregrini, written in 167,
agrees to such an extent with the Letters of Ignatius, both as to
facts and phraseology, that the coincidence seems inexplicable
except on the hypothesis that Lucian made a tacit use of these
Letters. A significant phrase in the Letter of the Church of Smyrna,
apropos of the death of Polycarp (c. 3) , has always recalled an
expression in the Letter to the Romans (c. 5. 2). Polycarp him
self says in his Letter to the Philippians: «The Letters of Ignatius
that he sent to us, and such others as we had in hand, we have
sent to you, according to your wish. They are added to this Letter.
You will find them very useful; for they contain faith and patience
and much edification relative to Our Lord.» These words, written
shortly after the death of Ignatius, are so final and decisive that the
opponents of the authenticity of the Ignatian Letters are obliged to
reject the Letter of Polycarp as a forgery, or at least to maintain
that the passages concerning Ignatius are interpolated. They have
sought to counterbalance external evidence by objections drawn from
the Letters themselves. They argue that the portrait of the bishop
of Antioch as presented in these Letters, has been disfigured by the
addition of impossible features; that heresy was neither so important
a matter nor so fully developed in the time of Ignatius; above all,

1 Adv. haer., v. 28, 4.

§10. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 35

that the ecclesiastical constitution exhibited in the Letters has at
tained a maturity which is really met with only in a later period. It
is true that in these Letters the bishop is exhibited, in language of
almost surprising precision, as distinct from the presbyters; that the
monarchical, and not the collegiate or presbyteral, constitution of
the Church is set forth as an accomplished fact. But if Irenaeus
could compile a catalogue of the bishops of Rome that goes back to
the Apostles1, it becomes impossible to maintain that the episcopate
began only with the second century. Nor can it be said that the
Letters were forged in the interest of episcopal power; the episcopate
is set forth in them as something well-established and accepted, of
whose legitimacy no one doubts. Still less can an argument be
drawn from the history of heresy; the heretic Cerinthus flourished
in the life-time of the Apostle John. All search for the traces of a
polemic in these Letters against the Gnosis of Valentinian has
proved fruitless. Finally, the pretended lack of naturalness in the
person of Ignatius would become a positive mystery if such a figure
had been created by a forger.

Not long after the discovery of the Mixed Recension the Anglican
y. Pearson successfully vindicated the authenticity of the Seven Letters.
(Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, Cambridge, 1672, Oxford, 1852; Migne,
PG., v. 37 — 473) against the Reformer jf. Dallaeus (De scriptis quae sub
Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Antioch. nominibus circumferuntur , Genevae,
1666). After editing (1845) the Syriac text of the three abbreviated
Letters to the Ephesians, Romans, and Polycarp, W. Cureton published a
quite untenable apology for them as the genuine Letters of Ignatius. He
maintained that the longer form of the same in the Mixed Recension
was the work of an interpolator, and the remaining four simply forgeries
(Vindiciae Ignatianae, London, 1846). For the more recent literature cf.
J.Nirschl, Das Todesjahr des hi. Ignatius von Antiochien und die drei orien-
talischen Feldzlige des Kaisers Trajan, Passau, 1869. Th. Zahn, Ignatius von
Antiochien, Gotha, 1873. In his Geschichte der altchristlicnen Literatur,
ii. i, 381 — 406, Ad. Harnack abandoned, as antiquated, the hypothesis of
his earlier work: Die Zeit des Ignatius (Leipzig, 1878), in which he had
attempted to place the death of Ignatius about 138. F. X. Funk, Die Echt-
heit der Ignatianischen Briefe aufs neue verteidigt, Tubingen, 1883. W. D.
Killen, The Ignatian Epistles entirely spurious, Edinburgh, 1866. R. C.
Jenkins, Ignatian Difficulties and Historic Doubts, London, 1890. D. Volter,
Die Ignatianischen Briefe, auf ihren Ursprung untersucht, Tubingen, 1892.
y. Rtville, Etudes sur les origines de 1'episcopat. La valeur du temoignage
d'Ignace d'Antioche, Paris, 1891. Id., Les origines de 1'episcopat, Part, i
(Paris, 1894), 442—520. L. Tonetti, II Peregrinus di Luciano e i cristiani
del suo tempo, in Miscellanea di storia e coltura eccles. (1904), 72 — 84. /c/.

r y

§ 10. Polycarp of Smyrna.

I. HIS LIFE. -- Irenseus has preserved some precious details con
cerning Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, to whom Ignatius wrote one
of his seven Letters. Irenaeus had listened, as a boy, to the dis-

1 Adv. haer., iii. 3, 3.

36 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

courses of the old bishop, and had « heard him tell of his relations
with John (the Apostle) and with others who had seen the Lord, and
how he quoted from their language, and how much he had learned
from them concerning the Lord and His miracles and teaching» J. At
the end of 154 or at the beginning of 155 Polycarp visited Rome,
in the hope of coming to an understanding with Pope Anicetus
concerning the manner of the celebration of Easter, «but neither could
Anicetus move Polycarp to give up his custom, which he had always
observed with the Apostle John, the disciple of Our Lord, and with
the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, nor could Polycarp
move Anicetus to adopt that custom, the latter declaring that he was
bound to keep up the customs of his predecessors (rwv -po adroo
TcpsafiuripcDv). Nevertheless, they preserved communion with one
another, and in order to do him honour, Anicetus caused Polycarp to
celebrate the Eucharist in his church, and they parted in peace » 2.
Not long after this incident Polycarp died the death of a martyr
at Smyrna in his eighty-sixth year. In an Encyclical Letter the com
munity of Smyrna made known to all Christians his death and the
circumstances of his martyrdom. From its context (c. 21; cf. 8, i)
we can ascertain with approximate certainty that Polycarp died Fe
bruary 23., in 155.

Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons und der
altkirchl. Literatur (1891), iv. 249—283; (1900), vi. 94—109. (K. Bihl-
meyer, Der Besuch Polykarps bei Anicet und der Osterfeierstreit, in Katholik
[1902], i. 314 — 327.) Concerning the date of Polycarp's death, cf. Harnack,
Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur (1897), ii. i, 334 — 356. P. Corssen , Das
Todesjahr Polykarps, in Zeitschr. fiir neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii.
6 1 — 82. For the encyclical letter of the community of Smyrna, cf. § 59, 2.

2. LETTER TO THE PHILIPPIANS. -- Irenaeus speaks of Letters sent
by Poly carp •« partly to neighbouring communities to confirm them (in
the faith), partly to individual brethren to instruct and exhort them3.»
On another occasion he writes: « There is a very excellent fixavcoTdrq}
letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, from which the form of his faith
and the teaching of truth can be seen by those who are of good will
and intent on their salvation » 4. Only fragments of the original Greek
have reached us, but we possess the entire text in an old Latin trans
lation. It is a word of comfort written at the request of the com
munity of Philippi in Macedonia, and encourages all its members to
constancy ; it inculcates, moreover, the special duties of married people,
of widows, deacons, youths, virgins, and the clergy. This Letter of
Polycarp is full of imitations and reminiscencies of the Letter of
St. Clement to the Corinthians (c. 9, 2; 13, 2). As late as the end

1 Iren., Ep. ad Florin., in Eus., Hist. eccl. v. 20, 6.

2 Iren., Ep. ad Viet., in Ens., Hist, eccl., v. 24, 16 sq.
a Hist, eccl., v. 20, 8. 4 Adv. haer., iii. 3, 4.

§ 10. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 37

of the fourth century some communities af Asia Minor were wont
to read it during divine service *. Some recent writers have disputed
its authenticity or denied its integrity, but only with the object of
crippling its value as an evidence of the authenticity of the Ignatian
Letters (cf. § 9, 3). Its authenticity is guaranteed by Irenaeus; nor
can the .distinction between a genuine nucleus and later accretions
be upheld, in view of the striking unity of its style, and its constant
dependence on the Letter of St. Clement.

The Greek codices of the Letter to the Philippians are all, directly or
indirectly, copies of one exemplar; all end at c. 9, 2, with the words xai
6t' Tjfj-a? 6r:6. The rest of the Letter (cc. 10 — 14) is taken from an old
Latin translation, itself very carelessly made. However, the Greek text of
chapters 9 and 13 has been preserved in the Church History of Eusebius 2.
The Latin translation was edited by y. Faber Stapulensis, Paris, 1498. The
Greek text (c. i — 9) was first edited by P. Halloix, Douai, 1633. The
Greek text in Migne (PG. , v. 1005—1016) is taken from Hefele, Opp.
Patr. apost. , Tubingen, 1847. The most important recent editions are
those of Zahn, Leipzig, 1876; Funk, Tubingen, 1878, 1887, 1901 ; Light foot,
London, 1885, 1889; (Hilgenfeld, Berlin, 1902; Vizzini, in the Bibliotheca
Sanct. Patrum, series ii, vol. ii, Rome, 1901; cf. § 4; 9, i). Zahn re
translated into Greek the part that has reached us in Latin only. His
translation has been improved by Funk in some places. Lightfoot executed
a new re-translation. New editions of the old Latin version (PG. , v.
1015 — 1022) are found in Zahn 1. c., also in Funk, Die Echtheit der
Ignatianischen Briefe, Tubingen, 1883, pp. 205 — 212. Cf. A. Harnack, Zu
Polycarp ad Philipp. ii. , in Miscellen (Texte und Untersuchungen , new
series, v. 3), pp. 86—93. For new versions of the Letter to the Philippians
see § 4. (T. Nicklin, Three Passages in SS. Ignatius and Polycarp, in
Journal of Theological Studies [1902 — 1903], iv. 443.) Funk, Die Echtheit
der Ignat. Briefe, 14—42: «Der Polykarpbrief». The hypothesis of an
interpolation proposed by A. Ritschl (Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche,
2 ed., Bonn, 1857, 584—600), was accepted by G. Volkmar, in his Epist.
Polyc. Smyrn. genuina, Zurich, 1885, and in Theol. Zeitschrift aus der
Schweiz (1886), iii. 99—111, also by A. Hilgenfeld , in Zeitschrift fur
wissenschaftl. Theologie (1888) , xxix. 180—206. J. M. Cotterill found
citations from this Letter in the « Pandects* of the Palestinian monk Anti-
ochus (c. 620) whereupon he declared Antiochus to be the author of the
Letter of Polycarp ; cf Journal of Philology (1891), xix. 241—285. This
discovery did not merit the honour of the solid refutation from the pen of
C. Taylor, ib. (1892), xx. 65—110. (J. Turmel, Lettre et martyre de Saint
Polycarpe, in Annales de philosophic chret. [i904[ 22 — 33.)

3. LATIN FRAGMENTS. -- Five small Latin fragments, current under
the name of Polycarp, treat of certain Gospel texts; they are, according
to all appearances, spurious.

These fragments were published by Fr. Feuardent in the notes to his
edition of Irenaeus (Cologne 1596, reprinted 1639). They were taken by
him from a Latin Catena on the four Gospels. The compiler of the Ca
tena, now lost, had found these fragments in a work of Victor, bishop of
Capua (f 554). Other recensions of these fragments are in Migne (1. c.

1 St. Jer., De viris illustr., c. 17. 2 iii. 36, 13 — 15.

38 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

v. 1025 — 1028), Zahn (1. c. 171 — 172), and Lightfoot (1. c. 1001 — 1004),
Funk, Patres apostolic! (1901), ii. 288 sq. In his Geschichte des neu-
testamentl. Kanons, i. 782 f., Zahn undertook to defend their authenticity,
with the exception of one phrase.

§ ii. The Shepherd of Hernias.

I. CONTENTS. The longest, and for form and contents the most
remarkable of the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, is the
Shepherd (notp.ijv, Pastor) of Hennas. It contains five Visions (bpd-
aeiq, visiones), twelve Commandments (ivroXai, mandata), and ten
Similitudes (xapapoXai , similitudines). This triple division is only
external, and does not affect the contents. Hermas himself, or the
angel who speaks to him, seems in the last Vision (v, 5) to
distinguish two parts : the preceding Visions (i — iv) that the Church,
in the guise of a Matron, exhibits to the author, and the subsequent
Mandates and Similitudes expounded to Hermas by an angel of penance
in the garb of a Shepherd. The true sign of demarcation is the organ
of revelation, first the Matron and then the Shepherd (Sim. ix. i,
i — 3). It is the prominence of the latter in the second part of the work
that justifies its peculiar title. It is true that he also appears in the
first part of the book, but in a subordinate role and not in the
Shepherd's guise (cf. Vis. ii. 4, i; iii. 10, 7). All the revelations
made to Hermas end with exhortations to penance, directed first to
himself and the members of his family, then to the Roman Church,
and to all Christians. This call to the penitential life is justified
throughout by the imminent persecutions of the Church, and the near
coming of Christ in Judgment. The general outline of the work is
found in the first four Visions. The Matron, representative of the
Church, grows constantly younger, until she appears in the fourth
Vision as a bride who comes forth in splendour from the nuptial
chamber. Both the manner of the Matron's appearance, and the re
creations and instructions that she gives, exhibit a steady progress
of penitential exhortation. The third Vision is by far the most
important. It presents the Communion of Saints, i. e. those who
are baptized and remain faithful to the grace of baptism, whether
yet living or already departed, under the image of a great tower
rising from the water and built of square and shining blocks. Those
who through sin have lost their baptismal grace, are represented by
the stones that lie scattered about, and which must be trimmed and
polished before finding a place in the tower. The Mandates and
Similitudes to which the fifth Vision serves as an introduction are
destined to realize and explain the first part (cf. Vis. v. 5 ; Sim. ix.
i, i — 3). The Mandates have for object faith in one God (i), simpli
city (ii), truthfulness (iii), chastity both in and out of matrimony (iv),
mildness and patience (v), the discernment of suggestions made by

the good and the bad angels (vi), fear of the Lord (vii), temperance
(viii), confidence in God (ix), forbearance from sorrowfulness (x),
avoidance of false prophets (xi), and warfare against evil desires (xii).
The figurative diction of the Similitudes recalls the Visions. The
first is a warning against excessive solicitude for temporal goods;
the second is an exhortation to charity; the third and fourth exhibit
good and evil, dwelling together for the present, to be separated at
the end of time; the fifth extols the merits of fasting; the sixth
the necessity of penance ; the seventh explains the uses of tribulation ;
in the eighth and the ninth the branches of the willow tree and the
stones of the tower serve as illustrations of the truth that through
penance the sinner may once again come into living communion with
the Church, and thereby secure a place in the glorified Church of
the future. The tenth ends with these words: « Through you the
building of the tower has been interrupted; if you do not make
haste to do good, the tower will be finished, and you will remain
without» (Sim. x. 4, 4). In diction and exposition the book is diffuse
and minutely circumstantial; at the same time it is popular and
picturesque. Its chief characteristic is its apocalyptic form and tone.
The dogmatic interest of the work lies chiefly in its teaching con
cerning the possibility of forgiveness of mortal sins, notably adultery
and apostasy (cf. Vis. iii; Sim. viii — ix). It is only during the
period of grace announced by him that the Shepherd admits a for
giveness of sins by penance (i^ru.voiav ajuapucov, Mand. iv. 3, 3); in
all future time there shall be but one forgiveness of sins through
baptism (IJLZTU.VOW. /jtta, Mand. iv. I, 8; 3, 6). The still open way of
penance is said to be long and difficult (Sim. vi — viii). The Shepherd
is the earliest witness to the « Stations » or degrees of penitential
satisfaction (Sim. v, I, I. 2).

2. ITS ORIGIN. The author of the Shepherd frequently calls
himself Hermas (Vis. I. I, 4; 2, 2), nor does he add to that name
anything more definite. He lived in very modest circumstances at
Rome where he cultivated a field in the vicinity of the city (Vis. iii.
i, 2; iv. i, 2). It was there, on the road from Rome to Cumse,
that he received the revelations of the Matron. At the end of the
second Vision, there is a statement of especial interest. Hermas is
commissioned by the Matron to make known her revelations to all
the elect. «Make ready », she says, «two copies, and send one to
Clement, and one to Grapte. Clement will send it (the little book)
to the cities that are without; Grapte will instruct the widows and
the orphans; but thou wilt read it in this city to the priests who
are placed over the Church» (Vis. ii. 4, 3). Grapte seems to have
been a deaconess. Clement is represented as Pope; he is the head
of the Roman Church, and it is his duty to conduct its communi
cations with other churches. Hermas is certainly speaking of Cle-

4O FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

ment of Rome (§ 8), and refers very probably to the Letter of
Clement to the Corinthians that was highly esteemed by the primitive
Christian churches. Hennas presents himself, therefore, as a con
temporary of Clement. Now, the author of the Muratorian Fragment
says (in Zahn's recension): «Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus
nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente (in) cathedra urbis
Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre ejus; et ideo legi eum quidem
oportet, se publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas
completes numero neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest. »
However difficult and obscure these words may be, it is very clear
that the author of the Fragment wishes to exclude the Shepherd
from the canon of biblical writings, because he is no other than the
brother of Pope Pius I (c. 140 — ^55). Modern critics are practically
unanimous in agreeing with the author of the Fragment; there is,
indeed , no good reason for rejecting his evidence. It is true that
the author of the Shepherd is thereby declared guilty of a deceit;
he was not a contemporary of Clement, for he did not write his
work before 140 — 155. That the Shepherd was written about the
middle of the second century, though not absolutely certain, is
highly probable, and certain intrinsic evidence confirms it. The
special predilection of the author for the question of forgiveness of
mortal sins, and his diffuse treatment of the subject, suggest that
he was aware of the Montanist movement, at least in its beginnings.
He is an opponent of the Gnostics (Vis. iii. 7, I ; Sim. viii. 6, 5 ;
ix. 22, I : DiAovrsc, Tidvra ftvcocrxsw xal oudsv 0X0)0, fwaHrxouffi). The
persecution of the Christians to which he several times refers as
having ceased, cannot be that of Domitian (81—96); it must there
fore be that of Trajan (98 — 117). The subsequent long period of
peace, during which the zeal of many Christians grew deplorably
cold (Vis. ii. 2 — 3), was surely the reign of Antoninus Pius (138 — 161).
Finally, the Christianity to which Hermas addresses himself, has al
ready grown old; laxity and secularism have set in; it is clearly
necessary to renew ecclesiastical discipline, particularly as to the
restoration of apostates to the communion of the Church. In these
dismal traits it is impossible to recognize the Church of the first
century. Some modern scholars have denied that the Shepherd is
from the hand of one author. De Champagny postulates two, Hilgen-
feld three; their hypotheses have found few followers. The constant
similarity of style and vocabulary, of tendency and situation, bears
evidence to the original unity of the work. We must not, however,
look on it as composed at one sitting; rather was it put together
piecemeal, and grew to its present size by the gradual juxtaposition
of smaller writings (Vis. v. 5; Sim. ix. i, i ff; x. I, i). Funk has
shown that there is no foundation for Spitta's imaginary discovery
of a Jewish work as the basis of the Shepherd.

§ II. THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 4!

3.- HISTORY OF THE WORK. Irenaeus introduces1 a quotation
from the Shepherd with the significant formula sixey '/] TPa(P'^- Cle-
ment of Alexandria made considerable use of the work and seems
to have appreciated it highly. Origen thought the author identical
with the Hermas of Romans xvi. 14, and says expressly that he con
siders it a divinely inspired work2: «quae scriptura valde mihi utilis
videtur et, ut puto, divinitus inspirata». Yet he was aware that it
was not generally admitted as such 3, and that some treated it with
contempt 4. Therefore, he adds to his quotation the qualifying phrase :
«si cui tamen scriptura ilia recipienda videtur». Even in the fourth
century it was looked on in Egypt and in Palestine as a manual
quite suited to the instruction of the catechumens 5. Its reputation
passed aw-ay quicker in Italy and Africa. In the former country
the author of the Muratorian Fragment is very positive in his rejection
of it (see above p. 38). About the end of the second century, it must
have been widely held in the Western Church that the work had no
canonical authority, and deserved only limited confidence. Only
thus can wre find some explanation for the attitude of Tertullian who
held the Shepherd to be «scriptura» while he was a Catholic6, but
when he became a Montanist, could thus address Pope Callixtus:
«Cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quae sola moechos amat, divino
instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum,
etiam vestrarum, inter apocrypha et falsa iudicaretur. » 7 Thenceforward
interest in the Shepherd dwindled away in the west, and it passed
so thoroughly out of general use that St. Jerome could say that
it was almost unknown among the Latins; «apud Latinos paene
ignotus est» 8.

4. TEXT-TRADITION AND EDITIONS. — The first to discover a codex of
the Greek text of the Shepherd was the well-known forger C. Simonides
(f 1867). The manuscript was discovered by him at Mount Athos and dates
from the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Three folios of this codex, and a
very untrustworthy copy of the remainder, made by Simonides, belong
since 1856 to the University of Leipzig. The conclusion of the \vork is
lacking (Sim. ix. 30, 3 — x. 4, 5). This manuscript, or rather its Lipsian
copy, was edited by Tischendorf in Dressel's edition of the Apostolic
Fathers (Leipzig, 1857, 1863) and separately ib. 1856. (Simonides had sold
to the Leipzig Library, not a correct copy of the manuscript, but one
interpolated by himself, with the help of an old Latin version of the
Shepherd known as the Vulgata, and some quotations from the Greek
Fathers. His text was published as genuine, Leipzig, 1856, by R. Anger
and W. Dindorf. The deceit was at once laid bare , and in the same
year the Library acquired a correct copy of the manuscript.) The Codex
Sinaiticus (§ 7 , 4) contains the first part of the Shepherd (about one

1 Adv. haer., iv. 20, 2. - Comm. in Rom., x. 31.

3 Comm. in Matth., xiv. 21. 4 De principiis, iv. 1 1.

5 Athan., Ep. fest. 39 an. 365 ; Eus., Hist, eccl., iii. 3, 6.

6 De oratione, c. 16. 7 De pudic., c. 10; cf. c. 20.
8 De viris illustr., c. 10.

42 FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

fourth; as far as Mand. iv. 3, 6). With the aid of the Leipzig manuscript,
the Codex Sinaiticus, and a more or less thorough use of such other
helps as translations and citations, several editions of the Shepherd soon
appeared: Hilgenfeld, Leipzig, 1866, 2. ed. 1881 ; v. Gebhardt and
Harnack , Leipzig, 1877; Punk, Tubingen, 1878, 1887, 1901; cf. § 4.
y. Drdseke published in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1887), xxx.
172 — 184, the conclusion of the Shepherd, from Sim. ix. 30, 3 to the end,
in a Greek text that was based on a work of Simonides: 'Opftooo'^ov CEX-
XTQVWV deoXoftxal ypacpa! Tsssapsj, London, 1859. Hilgenfeld soon followed
with an edition of the entire Greek text, Leipzig, 1887. Unfortunately
this Greek conclusion of the Shepherd is a forgery of Simonides, as Funk
has demonstrated in Theol. Quartalschrift (1888), Ixx. 51 — 71. A more exact
knowledge of the Athos codex can be found in Lambros and Robinson:
A collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hennas by Spyridion
P. Lambros; translated and edited by J. A. Robinson, Cambridge, 1888.
Lambros reproduced two pages of the Codex, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift
(1893), ii. 609 if. Two small (very imperfect) fragments of the Greek text
(Sim. ii. 7, 10; iv. 2 — 5) are preserved in a papyrus-roll belonging to the
Berlin Museum. For a fac-simile of the text cf. U. Wilcken, Tafeln zur alteren
griechischen Palaographie , Leipzig, 1891, Plate iii. See also JDiels and
Harnack, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. d. Wissensch., Berlin,
1891, 427 — 431 ; A. Ehrhard, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1892), Ixxiv, 294 — 303.
Until 1856, only one ancient Latin translation was known, published at
Paris in 1513 by J. Faber Stapulensis. It is usually called the «Vul-
gata», to distinguish it from the one mentioned below. The last edition of
it was published by Hilgenfeld, Leipzig, 1873. Its numerous codices are
described by v. Gebhardt and Harnack in their edition of the Greek text
(Leipzig, 1877), pp. xiv — xxii; cf. H.Delehaye, in the Bulletin critique (1894),
pp. 14—16, concerning a new manuscript of the same. J. van den Gheyn,
Un manuscrit de 1'ancienne version latine du Pasteur d'Hermas, in Museon,
new series (1902), iii. 274 — 277. A second Latin translation, the so-called
«Palatina», was published by Dressel'm his edition of the Apostolic Fathers,
Leipzig, 1857 (1863), from a Codex Palatinus mine Vaticanus, of the four
teenth century. It was incorporated, with important corrections, in Gebhardt
and Harnack 's edition of the Greek text, Leipzig, 1877. As to the text of this
version cf. Funk, in Zeitschrift fiir die 6'sterreich. Gymnasien (1885), xxxvi.
245 — 249. It is generally admitted that the Vulgata version dates from the
second century, and that the Palatina was made with the aid of the Vulgata
in the fifth. For a different opinion cf. J. Haussleiter , De versionibus
Pastoris Hermae latinis (Diss. inaug.), Erlangen, 1884. An Ethiopic trans
lation derived from the Greek, made probably in the sixth century, was
published by A. d'Abbadie, Leipzig, 1860 (Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde
des Morgenlandes, ii. i). G. H. Schodde, Herma Nabi: The Ethiopic version
of Pastor Hermae examined, Leipzig, 1876 (Diss. inaug.), is a superficial
and unreliable work.

5. RECENT LITERATURE. — For German and English translations of the
Shepherd, cf. § 4. There is an English translation by Fr. Crombie in
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), ii. 323—435. E. Gadb, Der Hirt
des Hernias. Ein Beitrag zur Patristik, Basel, 1866. Th. Zahn, Der Hirt
des Hermas untersucht, Gotha, 1868. G. Heyne, Quo tempore Hermae
Pastor scriptus sit (Diss. inaug.), Regiomonti, 1872. H. M. Th. Behm,
Uber den Verfasser der Schrift, welche den Titel «Hirt» fiihrt, Rostock,
1876. J. Nirschl, Der Hirt des Hermas. Eine historisch-kritische Unter-
suchung, Passau, 1879. A- Brilll , Der Hirt des Hermas nach Ursprung
und Inhalt untersucht, Freiburg, 1882. R. Schenk, Zum ethischen Lehr-

§ 12. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 43

begriff des Hirten des Hermas (Programm), Aschersleben, 1886. A. Link,
Christ! Person und Werke im Hirten des Hermas (Diss. inaug.) , Mar
burg, 1886. Id. , Die Einheit des Pastor Hermae, ib., 1888. P. Baum-
gartner , Die Einheit des Hermas-Buches , Freiburg, 1889. E. Hilckstadt,
Der Lehrbegriff des Hirten. Ein Beitrag zur Dogrnengeschichte des
2. Jahrh., Anklam, 1889. C. Taylor, The Witness of Hermas to the Four
Gospels, London, 1892. F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Ur-
christentums. Vol. ii. Der Brief des Jakobus: Studien zum Hirten des
Hermas, Gottingen, 1896. Against Spitta cf. Funk, in Theol. Quartalschr.
(1899), Ixxxi. 321 — 360. D. Volter, Die Visionen des Hermas, die Sibylle
und Clemens von Rom, Berlin, 1900. H. A. v. Bakel , De Compositie
van den Pastor Hermae (Proefschrift) , Amsterdam, 1900 (the latter two
maintain with Spitta a Jewish basis of the Shepherd). U. Benigni , II
Pastore di Erma e 1' ipercritica , in Bessarione, IV (1899 — 19°°)> v°l- vl-
pp. 233 — 248. B.Heurtier, Le dogme de laTrinite dans 1'epitre de S. Clement
de Rome et le Pasteur d'Hermas, Lyon, 1900. J. Reville, La valeur du
temoignage historique du Pasteur d'Hermas, Paris, 1900. A. Stahl, Patri-
stische Untersuchungen, vol. i. — iii. Der «Hirt» des Hermas, Leipzig, 1901.
P. Batiffol, Hermas et le probleme moral au second siecle, in Revue biblique
(1901), x. 337 — 351. y. Leipoldt, Der Hirt des Hermas in saidischer Uber-
setzung, in Berliner Sitzungsberichte (1903), pp. 261 — 268. J. Benazech,
Le prophetisme chretien, depuis les origines jusqu'au «Pasteur» d'Hermas
(These), Cahors, 1901. Batiffol, fitudes d'histoire et de theologie positive,
Paris, 1902, pp. 45 — 68. Funk, Zum Pastor Herma, in Theol. Quartalschr.,
(1903), Ixxxv. 639- — 640. The Christology of Hermas is treated by Funk
in his second edition (1901) of the Apostolic Fathers, i. cxxxix — CXLIII.
V. Schweitzer, Der Pastor Hermae und die Opera supererogatoria, in Theol.
Quartalschr. (1904), Ixxxvi. 539 — 556.

§ 12. Papias of Hierapolis,

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, «a hearer» of the Apostle John and
friend of Polycarp of Smyrna \ wrote, apparently about 130, « Expla
nations of the sayings of the Lord» (AO^'KOV xup'.axcov i^r^ff^tQ) in
five books 2. Some small fragments of them have reached us through
citations and narrations of later writers as Irenseus and Eusebius.
Prescinding from the hypothesis (postulated by the opening words in
Eusebius)3 that these sayings were taken not only from the Gospel-
text but also from oral tradition, the character of the work cannot
be determined with certainty. Eusebius is surely wrong when from
these same words he concludes, against Irenseus , that Papias did
not know the Apostles, and that the « presbyter* John, whose con
temporary he declares himself to be, was another than the Apostle
John. The traditions handed down by Papias concerning the origin
of the first two Gospels are well-known and have given rise to much
controversy4. Eusebius believed Papias to be a man of very limited
mental powers, who accepted many things that pertained to the
domain of fable (poftixwrspa) , especially a millenarian reign of Christ

1 Iren., Adv. haer., v. 33, 4. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., iii. 39, i.

3 Ib., iii. 39, 3—4. 4 Ib., iii. 39, 15—16.

44 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

on earth beginning with the resurrection of the just, a belief that he
acquired through incapacity to comprehend the figurative expressions
of the apostolic writers 1.

For the latest trace of the work of Papias cf. G. Bickell, in Zeitschrift
fur kath. Theol. (1879), m'- 799 — 803. The fragments of Papias may be
found in M. J. Routh , Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed. (Oxford, 1846 — 1848), i.
3 — 44 (Migne, PG., v. 1255 — 1262); Hilgenfeld, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl.
Theol. (1875), xviii. 231 — 270; Gebhardt and Harnack, Earnabae epist.
(1878), pp. 87 — 104; Funk, Opp. Patrum apostol. (1881), ii. 276 — 300.
Cf. Pitra, Analecta sacra (1884), ii. 155 — 161 ; C. de Boor, in Texte und
Untersuchungen (1888), v. 2, 165 — 184; E. Preuschen, Antilegomena (Gieften,
1901), pp. 54 — 63. The English translation of Roberts and Donaldson is
in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), i. 153 — 155. — Zahn, Papias von
Hierapolis, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1866), xxxix. 649 — 696. Id.,
Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, i. 2, 849 — 903; ii. 2, 790 — 797. Id.,
Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1900), vi. 109 — 157.
W. Weiffenbach, Das Papias-Fragment bei Eusebius (Kirchengeschichte, iii.
39, 3 — 4), Giefien, 1874. Id. , Die Papias-Fragmente liber Markus und
Matthaus, Berlin, 1878. C. L. Leimbach, Das Papias-Fragment (Bus., Hist,
eccl.; iii. 39, 3 — 4), Gotha, 1875. A. Hilgenfeld, Papias von Hierapolis
und die neueste Evangelienforschung, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol.
(1886), xxix. 257 — 291. A. Baumstark, Zwei syrische Papiaszitate, in Oriens
Christianus 1902, pp. 352 — 357. Th. Mommsen, Papianisches, in Zeitschr.
fiir die neutestamentl. Wissenschaft (1902), iii. 156 — 159. Ad. Harnack,
Pseudo-Papianisches, ib. pp. 159 — 166.

SECOND SECTION.

THE APOLOGETIC LITERATURE OF THE SECOND

CENTURY.

§ 13. Preliminary Observations.

If the ecclesiastical literature of the second century wears an ex
clusively apologetic air, this results, quite naturally, from the circum
stances of that period. «The Christians are opposed by the Jews as
strangers (dXX6<pu)iot), and are persecuted by the heathens»2. Calumnies
of every kind (concubitus Oedipodei, epulae Thyesteae, Onocoetes),
and the ridicule and mockery of eminent writers like Lucian and
Celsus, prejudiced and irritated public opinion against the Christians.
The mob was stirred to violent outbreaks of hate by the heathen
priests, magicians of every kind, and Jews. The antique state, with
whose framework polytheism was intimately interwoven, saw itself
daily more and more impelled by the instinct of self-preservation to
undertake a campaign of extermination against the Christians.

It was amid these conditions that the writings of the Apologists
arose. It is true that they are also more or less positive attacks
on heathenism, in so far as they employ not only defensive but offen-

1 Ib., iii. 39, ii — 13. 2 Ep. ad Diognetum, 5, 17.

§ 13- PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 45

sive weapons. In their exposition of the nature and contents of the
Christian religion, they generally furnish only so much explanation
as seems necessary to defend themselves from the calumnies and pre
judices of their opponents. But since they also aim at setting forth
the relations of Christianity to paganism, and appeal frequently to
the germs of truth contained in the latter, they offer the first con
tributions to the establishment of an harmonious fusion of the teachings
of reason and those of revelation; thereby they prepared the way
for theology or the science of faith. Although originally addressed
to a heathen society, it was in Christian circles that from the beginning
the apologists sought and found the majority of their readers. For
mally, they usually imitate contemporary discourses, such as were
then carefully worked out according to the rules of Greek rhetoricians
or sophists, \vhose art had entered upon a kind of renaissance of fame
and glory in the century of Hadrian and the Antonines.

The writings directed against the Jews are much fewer in number.
Those that have reached us are in the form of dialogues, and are
less intent on the refutation of Jewish accusations against the Chris
tians than on the confirmation of the latter in their conviction that
the Law of Moses had only a temporary purpose and authority. The
blossoms of the Old Law had reached their full fruitage in the New
Dispensation.

Complete editions of the Greek Apologists were brought out by F. Morellus,
Paris, 1615 (reprinted Paris, 1636; Cologne 1686); the Benedictine Pru-
dentius Mar anus, Paris, 1742 (reprinted Venice, 1747); J. C. Th. de Otto,
Corpus apologetarum christianorum saec. II, 9 voll. , Jenae, 1847 — 1872
(the first five volumes, containing the works of St. Justin Martyr, were re-
published 1876—1881). The text of the Apologists in Gallandi, Bibl. vet.
Patr., i. — ii., and in Migne, PG., vi., is taken from the edition of Maranus.
A valuable contribution to the textual criticism of these writings, from the
pen of J. H. Noltes, is found in Migne (col. 1705 — 1816).

Ad. Harnack, Die Uberlieferung der griecmVchen Apologeten des 2. Jahr-
hunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter, in Texte und Unter-
suchungen, etc. (Leipzig, 1882), i. 1—2. O. von Gcbhardt, Zur handschrift-
lichen Uberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten, ib. 1883, i. 3, 155
to 196. Harnack and von Gebhardt have shown that, with the exception
of the writings of St. Justin, the three books of Theophilus ad Autolycum,
and the «Irrisio» of Hermias, the greater part of the manuscripts of the
second and third century Greek Apologists that have reached us come
down, directly or indirectly, from one (no longer perfect) prototype, the
Arethas-Codex of the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris (cod. Par. gr. 451),
written in the year 914, by commission of Arethas, bishop of Caesarea. This
discovery has opened up a new horizon to the textual criticism of the
Apologies. In the fourth volume of the Texte und Untersuchungen (1888
1891 1893) are to be found editions of the Apology of Tatian by
E. Schwartz , of the writings of Athenagoras by the same, and of the
"Apology of Aristides by E. Hennecke. -- J. Donaldson, A Critical History
of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the death of the Apostles to
the Nicene Council, vol. ii.— iii, The Apologists, London, 1866. //. Dem-

46 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

bowski, Die Quell en der christlichen Apologetik des 2. Jahrhunderts, Part i:
Die Apologie Tatians, Leipzig, 1878. G. Schmitt, Die Apologie der drei
ersten Jahrhunderte in historisch-systematischer Darstellung, Mainz, 1890.
y. Zahn, Die apologetischen Grundgedanken in der Literatur der drei
ersten Jahrhunderte systematisch dargestellt, Wiirzburg, 1890. Cf. R. Ma
riano, Le apologie nei primi tre secoli della Chiesa : le cagioni e gli effetti,
in II Cristianesimo nei primi tre secoli (Scritti vari, v.), Florence, 1902,
pp. 7 — 83. On the anti-Judaizing literature of the primitive Church , cf.
Harnack, in Texteund Untersuchungen (1883), i. 3, 56 — 74; A. C.McGiffert,
A Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, New York, 1889, pp. i — 47.

§ 14. Quadratus.

The most ancient Apology known to us is that of Quadratus,
a disciple of the Apostles. It was written about 124, and was
presented to the Emperor Hadrian on the occasion of a persecution
of the Christians1. Quadratus is rightly identified with that disciple
of the Apostles who was endowed with the gift of prophecy and was,
to all appearances, a resident of Asia Minor 2. St. Jerome errs when
he identifies him3 with Quadratus, bishop of Athens, who lived in
the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161 — i8o)4. The sole extant fragment
of the Apology of Quadratus is a citation in Eusebius5.

For Quadratus and his Apology cf. Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed., i.
69 — 79; de Otto, Corpus apologetarum christ. (1872), ix. 333 — 341. See also
Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1900),
vi. 41 — 53; Funk, Patres App. i. 376; Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl.
Literatur, i. 95 f. ; ii. i, 269 — 271 ; Bardenhewer in Kirchenlexikon viWetzer
and Welte, 2. ed., x. 645—647.

§ 15. Aristides of Athens.

Until 1878 the Apology of Aristides of Athens mentioned by Eu
sebius6 was looked upon as hopelessly lost. In that year the Mechi-
tarists of San Lazzaro (near Venice) published a fragment of an Ar
menian translation of the same. In 1891 a complete Syriac trans
lation was made known by Rendel Harris; contemporaneously a
Greek revision of the text was edited by Armitage Robinson. The
latter text, which has reached us in the seventh-century romance
of Barlaam and Joasaph (cc. 26 — 27) 7, offers many corrections,
especially abridgments of the original. The Syriac translation has
been accepted as a faithful and reliable witness of the original con
cept of the Apology. The Armenian translation was also made from
the Greek, although it deals quite freely with the original, as may

1 Ens., Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2140: Hist, eccl., iv. 3, I — 2.
- Ib., iii. 37, i ; v. 17, 2.

3 De viris illustr., c. 19: Ep. 70 ad Magnum, c. 4.

4 E^^s., Hist, eccl., iv. 23, 3. 5 Ib., iv. 3, 2

c Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2140: Hist, eccl., iv. 3, 3; cf. Hieron., De viris illustr.,
c. 20; Ep. 70, 4.

7 Migne, PG., xcvi. 1108 — 1124.

§15- ARISTIDES OF ATHENS. 47

be seen from the two chapters (i — 2) of the preserved fragment.
From the inscription of the Syriac translation it seems fairly certain
that the original was offered to the Emperor Antoninus Pius (138 — 161).
Eusebius, who seems not to have read it, believed that the Apology
had been presented to Hadrian. The scope of the work is to prove
that the Christians alone possess the true knowledge of God. After
a brief exposition of the idea of God, as it is forced on the human
mind by the study of nature (c. i), the author invites the Emperor
to look out upon the world and examine the faith in God exhibited
by the different races of humanity, Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and
Christians (c. 2). The Barbarians adore God under the form of
perishable and changeable elements (cc. 3 — 7): earth, water, fire,
the winds, the sun ; the Greeks attribute to their gods their own
human frailties and passions (cc. 8 — 1 3) ; the Jews believe in one only
God, but they serve angels rather than Him (c. 14). The Christians
rejoice in the possession of the full truth, and manifest the same in
their lives (cc. 15 — 17). The beautiful and highly emotional descrip
tion of the Christian life closes1 with a reference to their « writings*.
The work of Aristides offers only rare echoes of the biblical
writings, to which may be added some more or less clear traces of
the Didache (§ 6) and of the Preaching of Peter (§ 30, i). Specific
Christian teachings are touched on very slightly, e. g. the Incarnation
of the Son of God through a Hebrew Virgin (c. 2, 6) and the Second
Coming of Christ in Judgment (c. 17, 8). There are extant in Ar
menian two other fragments that bear the name of Aristides : a homily
«on the appeal of the (Good) Thief and the reply of the Crucified
One» (Luke xxiii. 42 f.), and some lines of «a Letter to all philosophers
by the philosopher Aristides». In spite of the favourable opinion
of Zahn and Seeberg, the homily is not to be accounted authentic,
while the pretended epistolary fragment seems no more than an
enlarged citation from the Apology.

The Armenian fragment of the Apology and the Armenian homily
were published by the Mechitarists under the title: S. Aristidis philosophi
Atheniensis sermones duo, Venice, 1878. Both pieces were translated into
German by Fr. Sasse, in Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (1879), m'- 6l2 — 6l8
(cf. p. 816), and by Fr. v.Himpel, in Theol. Qtiartalschr. (1880), Ixii. 109 — 127.
A new edition of these Armenian texts, including the fragment of the Letter,
was brought out by P. Martin in Pitra, Analecta sacra, torn, iv., Paris, 1883,
Armenian text pp. 6 — n, Latin translation pp. 282 — 286; cf. Proleg.
pp. x — XT. J. Rendel Harris and J. Armitage Robinson published the Syriac
version of the Apology from a codex of the sixth or seventh century, found
in the monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai , also the Greek re-
cension, in Texts and Studies edited by J. A. Robinson, i. i, Cambridge
1891, 1893. From another manuscript Harris translated into English (ib.
pp. 29—33) the Armenian fragment of the Apology. See D. M. Kay,
The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, translated from the Greek and from

1 c. 16, 3, 5 ; cf. 15, i; 17, i.

48 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

the Syriac Version in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed 1885), ix. 263 — 279.
German translations of the Syriac version were made by R. Raabe, in Texte
imd Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1892), ix. i, and by J. Schonf elder , in Theol.
Quartalschr. (1892), Ixxiv. 531 — 557. Attempts to reconstruct the Greek
original of the Apology have been made by R. Seeberg, in Zahn's Forschungen
zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (Erlangen, 1893), v. 159 — 414 (con
tains comprehensive and thorough researches), and by Hennecke, in Texte
imd Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1893), iv. 3. Cf. Hennecke, Zur Frage nach der
urspriinglichen Textgestalt der Aristides-Apologie, in Zeitschrift fur wissen-
schaftl. Theol. (1893), ii. 42 — 126. Seeberg published, Erlangen 1894, a
complete edition of the writings of Aristides. L. Lemme , Die Apologie
des Aristides, in Neue Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theol. (1893), ii. 303 — 340.
F. Lauchert, Uber die Apologie des Aristides, in Internat. Theol. Zeitschrift
(1894), ii. 278 — 299. P. Fetter, Aristides-Citate in der armenischen Literatur,
in Theol. Quartalschr. (1894), Ixxvi. 529 — 539. In his Forschungen zur
Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (Erlangen, 1893), v. 415 — 437, Zahn
defends the authenticity of the homily and the fragment of the Letter.
P. Pape, in Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1894), xii. 2, holds both
to be spurious.

§ 16. Aristo of Pella.

The earliest Christian participant in the literary conflict with
Judaism seems to have been Aristo of Pella (a town of the Decapolis
in Palestine). Between 135 and 175 he published a small treatise
entitled «A Disputation between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ »
(Idaovoo, xal Hantcrxo'j avrdofca xspl Xptaroo) *. In this work Jason, a
Jewish Christian, proved so conclusively the fulfilment of the Messianic
prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth that his opponent, the Jew Papiscus,
begged to be baptized. There are traces in Origen (1. c.) of the con
tents of the work (now lost to us), also in the extant introduction or
Epistola nuncupatoria of an ancient Latin translation that has also
perished2. The time of its composition may be approximately
fixed: Celsus cites it (Origen 1. c.) in his work against the Christians,
written about 178. On the other hand, in a work whose title and
contents are unknown to us, but which was very probably our Dia
logue, Aristo of Pella makes mention of the issue of the Barkochba
rebellion (132—135)8. The first to claim this work for Aristo of
Pella was Maximus Confessor *.

The «testimonia antiquorum» and the fragments are found in Routh,
Reliquiae sacrae, i. 91—109; de Otto, Corpus apolog. christ., ix. 349
ad 363. Cf. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 92—95 ; ii. i, 268 f.
P. Corssen and Th. Zahn treat of the Dialogue of Aristo in their re
searches on the sources of the «Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Chri-
stiani», by Evagrius, in which text Harnack saw (1883) a translation or
revision of the Dialogue of Aristo; cf. § 96, i. In two Greek dialogues of

1 Orig., Contra Celsum, iv. 52.

- Ad Vigilium episcopum de iudaica incredulitate, in Opp. S. Cypr. (ed. Hartel],
iii. 119 — 132.

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 6, 3.

4 Scholia in Dion. Arcop., De myst. theol., c. I.

§ 17. JUSTIN MARTYR. 49

the fourth or fifth century, first edited by him, Conybeare believes that
he can recognize a recension of the work of Aristo : Fr. C. Conybeare,
The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zachaeus and of Timothy and Aquila,
Oxford, 1898 (Anecd. Oxon., classical series, viii). For the text of the latter
dialogue cf. D. Tamilia , De Timothei Christian! et Aquilae ludaei dia-
logo, Rome, 1901.

§ 17. Justin Martyr.

1. HIS LIFE. - - The habitual title of «philosophus et martyr » was
first applied to Justin by Tertullian1. He calls himself «the son of
Priscus, the son of Bacchius, of Flavia Neapolis» , i. e. the ancient
Sichem (modern Nablus) in Palestine2. He may have been born in
the first decade of the second century; his parents were heathens3.
He relates of himself that in his youth he was devoured by the
thirst of knowledge and went from one philosophical school to
another, visiting in turn the Stoics, the Peripatetics, the Pythagoreans,
and the Platonists. After a lengthy stay with the latter he eventually7
found in Christianity the object of his desires4. His conversion took
place before the last Jewish War (132 — 135), perhaps at Ephesus5.
As a Christian he clung to his peripatetic life, continued to wear
the philosopher's mantle 6, and defended Christianity, by his speech
and his writings, as «the only reliable and serviceable philosophy 7».
He spent considerable time at Rome, founded a school there, and
convicted of ignorance the philosopher Crescens 8. In the same
city most probably he sealed his faith with his blood. According
to the Acts of St. Justin his death took place under Junius Rusticus,
Prefect of the City, between 163 and 167.

C. Semisch, Justin der Martyrer. Eine kirchen- und dogmengeschicht-
liche Monographic, Breslau, 1840 — 1842, 2 voll. y. C. TJi. Otto, in Encyclo
pedia of Ersch and Gruber, Sect, ii., part 30, Leipzig. 1853, pp. 39 — 76.
Ch.E.Freppel, St. Justin, Paris, 1860, 3. ed. 1886. Th. Zahn, in Zeitschr.
fur Kirchengesch. (1885—1886), viii. 37 — 66. For the Acta SS. Justini et
sociorum cf. § 59, 4. C. Bertani , Vita di S. Giustino, Monza, 1902.
A. Z. Feder S. J., Justins des Martyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus, dem
Messias und dem menschgewordenen Sohne Gottes. Eine dogmen-
geschichtliche Monographic, Freiburg, 1906.

2. ins WRITINGS. — Justin is the most eminent of the apologetic
writers of the second century. Indeed, he is the first of the Fathers
to develop a comprehensive literary activity. He opposed with zeal
not only heathenism, but also Judaism and heresy. The manuscript-
tradition of the writings he has bequeathed us exhibits many defects
and gaps. Most of his writings are lost, while many writings that

1 Adv. Valent., c. 5. 2 Apol., i. I.

3 Dial, cum Tryphone, c. 28. 4 Ib., c. 2—8; cf. Apol., ii. 12.

5 Dial, cum Tryph., c. I 9 ; cf. Eus.. Hist, eccl., iv. 18, 6.
c Ib., iv. n, 8; cf. Just., Dial. c. I. 7 Dial. c. 8.

8 Acta S. Justini, c. 3; Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. ii, ii; Apol., ii. 3.
BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 4

5<3 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

falsely bear his famous name have been preserved. Only three of
the works current under his name have withstood the touchstone of
criticism : the two Apologies, and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho.

The Arethas-Codex (§ 13) contains only the spurious Epistola ad Zenam
et Serenum (see below p. 54) and the equally spurious Cohortatio ad Gen
tiles (p. 53). Two other independent collections of the writings of Justin
have reached us: the former Codex Argentorat. 9 (saec. xiii. or xiv.)
destroyed in the siege of Strasburg (1870), and the (more copious but
very much damaged) Codex Par. 450 (of the year 1364). All other
copies of works of Justin, in so far as they have been studied , are re
ducible to these three manuscripts; cf. Harnack , Die Uberlieferung der
griechischen Apologeten des 2. Jahrh. (§ 13), pp. 73 if. The first editor
of the works of Justin, R. Stephanus (Paris, 1551), followed closely the text
of Cod. Par. 450. The second editor, Fr. Sylburg (Heidelberg, 1593),
changed the order of the writings , and added to them the Oratio ad
Gentiles (p. 51) and the Letter to Diognetus (p. 52) both having been
in the meantime made known to the learned world by H. Stephanus (Paris,
1592) from Cod. Argent. 9. The reader will find, in § 13, mention of the
editions of Morellus, Mar anus (Gallandi, Migne), and de Otto. The latter
edition appeared at Jena, 1842 — 1843, in three octavo volumes, and later, as
part of the Corpus apologetarum, voll. i — v. 1847 — 1850, and 1876 — 1881.

3. THE TWO APOLOGIES. - - In the Paris Codex (Gr. 450) of the
year 1364, on wThich is based the text of the two Apologies, the
shorter, now known as the second, holds the first place. However,
its repeated references to a prior Apology (ii. 468) show that it
is really the second. — Concerning the composition of the first Apo
logy there has been no little discussion. Wehofer maintains that it
is an oration disposed according to all the rules of contemporary
rhetoric, notwithstanding an occasional wandering from the theme. Thus,
there is a prooemium followed by a propositio, viz., that the name
« Christian » cannot be condemned, since no evil can be proved against
the Christians as such. In the first part of the dialogue (cc. 4 — 13),
the refutatio, the author combats the accusations of impiety and civil
enmity. In the second part (cc. 14 — 67), the probatio proper, he main
tains that Christ, the founder of the Christian doctrine, is the Son of
God; his principal arguments are drawn from the Jewish prophecies. In
the peroratio he appeals to the imperial sense of justice and invokes as
an example the edict of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus concerning the
treatment of the Christians (c. 68). Rauschen denies any intentionally
artistic construction, but admits a division into two parts. The first
(cc. 4— 12) is chiefly negative, and aims at rebutting anti-Christian
calumnies; the second (cc. 13—67) is more positive, and consists
of an exposition and justification of the contents of the Christian
religion. We learn from the uncertain and obscure inscription of
the first Apology that it was dedicated to Antoninus Pius (138 — 161),
his adoptive sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, the Sacred
Senate, and the entire Roman people. It describes as a philosopher

§ 1 7. JUSTIN MARTYR. 5 I

and a « friend of knowledge », not only Marcus Aurelius, but also
Lucius Vertis, born in 130. It would seem from several indications
that this work was composed between 150 and 155. Thus Marcion
is described (cc. 26 58) as an apostle of the demon; Felix is
mentioned as prefect of Egypt (c. 29), and it is stated (c. 46) that
Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago.

The second or shorter Apology owed its origin to a very recent
event (%&eq dk xai -pcor^ c. i). Three Christians had been put to
death by Urbicus, the Prefect of Rome, merely for their profession of
the new religion. The fact is related by Justin, who adds to his story
certain paragraphs of an apologetic character, and concludes by asking
the Emperors (c. 1 5 ; cf. c. 2) to publish the writer's previous Apo
logy and to command the observance of justice in dealing with the
Christians. It has been found impossible to discover any dominant
idea or rhetorical order in this document, which is certainly no more
than a supplement or appendix of the first Apology, written also very
shortly after the composition of that work (cf. the references 4 6 8).
Urbicus was City-Prefect between 144 and 160; we must be content
for the present with this approximate knowledge, it is impossible to
ascertain the exact date.

The two apologies were edited separately by J. W..J. Brann, Bonn,
1830, 1860, 3. ed. by JR. Gutberlet, Leipzig, 1883; by G. Kriiger, Freiburg,
1891 (Sammlung ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellen-
schriften, i.), 2. ed. 1896. German translations of both have been made by
P. A. Richard, Kempten, 1871 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater), and H. Veil, Stras-
burg, 1894 (with explanatory notes). For an English translation see Dods,
Reith and Roberts, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), i. 163 — 302.
For the date of composition and the relations between the two apologies
cf. G. Kriiger, in Jahrb. fur protest. Theol. (1890), xvi. 579 — 593; J. A.
Cramer, in Theol. Studien (1891), Ixiv. 317—357, 401 — 436; B. Grundl,
De interpolationibus ex S. Justini phil. et mart. Apologia secunda expungen-
dis (Progr.), Augustae Vindel. , 1891. The hypercriticism of Grundl is
refuted by F. Emmerich, De Justini phil. et mart. Apologia altera (Diss.
inaug.), Minister, 1896. Th. M. Wehofer, Die Apologie Justins des Phil,
u. Mart., in literarhistorischer Beziehung zum erstenmal untersucht, Rome,
1897 (Romische Quartalschrift, Supplement 6). G. Rauschen, Die formale
Seite der Apologien Justins, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1899), Ixxxi. I88 — 206.
A. Lebentopulos , II a xal (3' 'AroXoYia UTilp yptrrtavtov 'louativou cpiXoso'^ou
•/.at [AdcpTUpo? xal 6 xata TkiAXi^vcov AG^OC 'Aftavaariou TOO jisYaXou (Dissert.),
Erlangen, 1901.

4. THE DIALOGUE WITH THE JEW TRYPHO. This work too, has
come down to us only in the Paris Codex of 1364, and is moreover
in an imperfect state. It wants the introduction, and the dedication
to a certain Marcus Pompeius (c. 141). Also from chapter 74
a considerable fragment has dropped out. The work sums up a
disputation held at Ephesus 1 (a fact very probably learned by Eusebius

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 18, 6.

52 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

from the lost introduction) during the then recent Jewish War (132
to 135: Dial. i. 9). The interlocutors were Justin and the JewTrypho;
the dialogue lasted for two days, and it is supposed that, correspondingly,
the original work consisted of two books. With an artistic skill, that Zahn
has finely brought out, the work includes both truth and fiction ; it is
in part made up of real discussions between Justin and learned Jews,
and is in part a free and original study. It is quite probable that
the Trypho who represents Judaism is none other than the celebrated
contemporary Rabbi Tarpho. In the introduction (cc. 2—8) Justin
describes the genesis of his own philosophico-religious opinions; in
the first part (cc. 10 — 47) he proves from the Old Testament that
the ritual Law of Moses has been abrogated in favour of the new
Law of Christ; in the second part (cc. 48 — 108) he makes it clear
from the prophecies of the Old Testament that the adoration of
Jesus does not conflict with the fundamental doctrine of Monotheism,
the adoration of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; in the third
part (cc. 109 — 141), he seeks to prove that the true Israel is to be
found in all those who have accepted Christianity, since the days of
the Apostles at Jerusalem ; to them belong the promises of the Old
Covenant. In the Dialogue reference is made to the first Apology
(c. 120); it must, therefore, have been composed after 150 — 155.
Th. Zahn, in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch., viii. 37 — 66.

5. LOST WORKS OF JUSTIN. In the Sacra Parallela of St. John
Damascene are preserved three lengthy fragments of a work of Justin
on the Resurrection (xepi u.vaaTu.az.toc,), in which are refuted Gnostic
objections against the resurrection of the body, and the proofs and
guaranties of this ecclesiastical doctrine set forth. There are also
other fragments bearing the name of Justin, but they are too brief and
disconnected to permit a judgment as to their authenticity and right
to a place among the writings of Justin. He refers himself (Apol. i. 26}
to a previous work against heretics (aw-cawa xara xaffwv TCOV ^c-
yqpivtov alpsffeeavj ; as to its content we are reduced to conjectures
based on other statements of Justin concerning heretics. St. Irenseus
knew and used i a work of Justin against Marcion (ffuvrar/jta xpoQ Map-
xiotva) ; according to some it was a fragment of the above-cited work,
according to others a special treatise. Eusebius 2 is the earliest witness
to the authorship of the following writings: a Discourse against the
Greeks (MyoQ TupoQ "I'lMyyag) «in which he discusses at length most of
the matters that are treated by us and by the Greek philosophers, and
examines carefully the nature of the demons»; another work addressed
to the Greeks under the title « Refutation* ftrepov xpo^EUrpaq o'jr
~/pa/2aa, ?, xai Ixifpwpsv lter/w)\ a work on the unity of God faspl
povapxiag) « based not only on our own writings but also on

1 Adv. haer., iv. 6, 2. * Hist, eccl., iv. 18, 3 ff.

§ 17. JUSTIN MARTYR. 53

those of the Greeks »; a work entitled « Psalter » ((paArr^) ; a doctrinal
treatise on the soul (ffjrohxnv xspi ^vyr^), «in which he describes
various researches concerning the problem of the soul and gives the
views of the Greek philosophers, with his promise to refute them in
another work wherein his own views shall be set forth ». The titles
of the first three of these writings are identical with those of three
works preserved in the manuscripts of the writings of St. Justin:
Oratio ad Gentiles (xpbc, ^EXkqvaQ), Cohortatio ad Gentiles (MfOQ
TrapawsTtxoQ JtpoQ "EXXr/vaQ), and De monarchia (rcep} fteou tiovapyiat;).
The five short chapters of the Oratio ad Gentiles, devoted to a very
energetic and efficient refutation of the unreasonable and immoral
mythology of Homer and Hesiod, cannot be attributed to Justin;
the style of the work differs from his too widely. Yet the little
treatise may possibly belong to the second century. At a later date
a certain Ambrosius revised it; this revision has reached us in a Syriac
translation. The Cohortatio ad Gentiles, a work in 38 chapters, under
takes to demonstrate, in an elegant, smooth and flowery style,
that whatever truth is found in the writings of the Greek sages,
poets and philosophers, was taken by them from the sacred books
of the Jews. Both in form and content this work offers a striking
contrast to the genuine writings of Justin. Very probably, however,
it was composed at the end of the second or the beginning of the third
century, though at present opinions differ very widely as to its origin.
The author of the six chapters De monarchia undertakes to prove
the unity of God and the inanity of the gods, mostly by forged
citations from the Greek poets, and with no reference to the Scrip
tures. As the work is apparently complete in itself, it can hardly be the
second part of the homonymous work of Justin referred to by Eusebius.
Moreover, its diction differs notably from that of Justin. Possibly
these three works were erroneously attributed to Justin by reason of
above-mentioned statements of Eusebius. Possibly, too, Eusebius had
before him works that wrongly bore the name of Justin. He says,
expressly, that apart from the works mentioned by him «very many
other works » circulated under the name of Justin. *. St. John Da
mascene, Maximus Confessor, and Photius quote, indeed, still other
works of Justin, but the sources of Christian literary tradition were by
that time very deeply troubled 2.

Fragments that seem to have some claim to authenticity are collected
in de Otto, Corpus apolog., iii. 210 — 265. On the fragments of De resur-
rectione re-edited by K. Holl , in Texte und Untersuchungen (1899), xx.
36—49, new series, v. 2, see Zahn, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. , viii.
20 — 37 i W- Bousset y Die Evangeliencitate Justins des Mart., Gottingen,
1891, pp. 123 — 127. A later revision of the Oratio ad Gentiles was edited,

1 Hist, eccl., iv. 18, 8.

2 Sacra Parallela ; Migne, PG., xci. 280; Bibl. Cod. 125.

54 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

in Syriac and English, from a seventh-century manuscript by W. Cureton,
Spicilegium Syriacum, London, 1855, pp. 38 — 42, 61 — 69. In Sitzungs-
berichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch., Berlin, 1896, pp. 627 — 646,
Harnack made known a German translation of the Syriac version, by
F. Baethgen , and added the original text of the Oratio, with corrections.
The author of the Cohortatio ad Gentiles , according to E. Schurer
(Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. [1877 — l878], ii. 319 — 331) borrowed from the
«Chronography» of Julius Africanus; he, therefore, belongs to the second
quarter of the third century. D. Volter on the contrary, in Zeitschr. fiir
wissensch. Theol. (1883), xxvi. 180 — 215, is of opinion that it was written
about 1 80, and presumably by Apollinaris of Hierapolis. J. Draseke, in
Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengeschichte (1884 — 1885), vii. 257 — 302, and Texte und
Untersuchungen (1892), vii. 3 — 4, 83 — 99, thinks that its author was Apolli
naris of Laodicea (f ca. 390), and that its original title was u-sp dX7}deiac T,
Xo-yoc TcapaivsTtxoc ~pos "EXXrjvac. This line of thought was adopted by J. R.
Asmus , in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1895), xxxviii. 115 — 155;
(1897), xl. 268 — 284, and Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. (1895 — 1896), xvi.
45- — 71, 220 — 252 ; he contends that in the Cohortatio Apollinaris of Laodicea
is attacking the infamous scholastic ordinance of Julian the Apostate, made
in 362 ; in turn, the Emperor was aiming at the Cohortatio in his work
against the Christians. A, Puech, in Melanges, Henri Weil, Paris, 1898,
395 — 406, places the date of the Cohortatio between 260 and 300. W. Wid-
mann, Die Echtheit der Mahnrede Justins des Martyrers an die Heiden
(Forschungen zur christl. Literatur und Dogmengeschichte), Mainz, 1902,
iii. i (the Cohortatio is a genuine work of Justin). W. Gaul, Die Ab-
fassungsverhaltnisse der pseudo-justinischen Cohortatio ad Graecos, Berlin,
1902. For false accounts of the discovery of the work of Justin on the
soul (~spl <!>o/rj?), mentioned by Eusebius, cf. H. Diels, in Sitzungsberichte
der kgl. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch,, Berlin, 1891, pp. 151 — 153.

6. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. Apart from the three works mentioned
above (p. 52), several other works have reached us that are erroneously
ascribed to Justin. We shall speak in § 22 of the Letter to Diognetus.
The Expositio fidei sen De Trinitate is a doctrinal exposition of
the Trinity and of Christology that has reached us in two recensions
of unequal length. Funk has shown, against Draseke, that the ori
ginal recension is the longer one, and that it belongs to the fifth
century, not to the time of Apollinaris of Laodicea. There exist at
present some fragments of a revision of this work in Syriac and
in Old-Slavonic. The Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum is an exhor
tation and guide to Christian asceticism; according to a conjecture
of Batiffol, it was written in the time of St. John Chrysostom by
Sisinnius, the Novatian bishop of Constantinople. The Quaestiones
et responsiones ad orthodoxos, a collection of 146 questions and answers
of a miscellaneous theological nature, are a work of the fifth century
(cf. Quaest. 71). Of the same date, perhaps, are the Quaestiones
Christianorum ad Gentiles, apologetical studies concerning God and
His relations to the world, and the Quaestiones Gentilium ad Christi
anas, equally metaphysical and theological in contents, and supposed
to be from the same hand. The Confutatio dogniatum quorundam
Aristotelicorum is directed chiefly against some principles of Aristo-

§ 17. JUSTIN MARTYR. 55

telian physics. There are also a few other small fragments of works
wrongly attributed to St. Justin.

y. Draseke has several times attempted to prove that the short recen
sion of the Expositio fidei is a work of Apollinaris of Laodicea, in Zeitschr.
fur Kirchengesch. (1883 — 1884), vi. i — 45, 503 — 549; also Jahrb. fiir
protest. Theol. (1887), xiii. 671 ff. He finally edited it under the latter's
name, in Texte und Untersuchungen, vii. 3—4, 353 — 363, cf. 158 — 182.
The thesis is utterly untenable ; as Funk has shown, in Theol. Quartalschr.
(1896), Ixxviii, 116 — 147, 224 — 250. These articles are reprinted in Funk,
Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 253 — 291.
In Pitra's Analecta sacra, iv.; Paris, 1883, P. Martin made known fragments
of a Syriac revision of the Expositio fidei (Syriac text, pp. n — 16, and
Latin translation, pp. 287—292). For the Old-Slavonic recension of the same,
cf. N, Bonwetsch, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 892 f. For the
Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum cf. P. Batiffol , in Revue Biblique (1986),
v. 114 — 122. The Quaestiones et responsa ad orthodoxos were edited once
more by A. Papadopulos-Kerameus, St. Petersburg, 1895, from a tenth-century
codex, in which they are attributed to Theodoret of Cyrus. Cf. on them
W. Ga/3, in Zeitschr. fiir die historische Theologie (1842), xii. 4, 35 — 154.
Draseke ', in Jahrb. fiir protest. Theol. (1884), x. 347—352, believes that there
are fragments of the writings of Apollinaris of Laodicea in the Fragmenta
Pseudo-Justini published by de Otto, Corpus Apolog., v, 368 — 375. A. Harnack
has vindicated for Diodorus of Tarsus the authorship of the « Quaestiones et
responsiones ad orthodoxos » ; cf. his Diodor von Tarsus, Vier pseudojusti-
nische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen (Texte und Unter
suchungen, new series, vi. v), Leipzig, 1901. This work contains a German
version of the first three writings and of the more important portions of the
fourth: Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos, Quaestiones Gentilium ad
Christianos, Quaestiones Christianorum ad Gentiles, and Confutatio dogmatum
Aristotelis. If Harnack' s arguments do not furnish a splendid and ir
refutable demonstration, as F. Diekamp thinks, in Theologische Revue (1902),
i. 53, they create at least a very strong probability in favour of Diodorus
of Tarsus. Funk , Le pseudo-Justin et Diodore de Tarse, in Revue d'his-
toire eccle'siastique (1902), iii. 947 — 971, thinks that the «Quaestiones et
responsa » attributed by Harnack to Diodorus are not earlier than the
middle of the fifth century. The statement which ascribes them to Theo
doret of Cyrus needs closer investigation.

7. THE AUTHENTIC WRITINGS OF JUSTIN. The notable dis
agreement concerning the contents and structure of his writings is owing,
in part at least, to a peculiar defect in the same: there is wanting in
them an orderly movement of thought. Justin is an impressionist.
He rarely tarries long enough to exhaust an idea, preferring to take
up other threads before returning to his original theme. Thus, cor
related subjects are scattered, and ideas which have little mutual
affinity are brought together. Moreover, he pays slight attention to
beauty of diction. His writings abound in solecisms and neologisms ;
he delights in long periods and frequent participial construction; at
times he falls into a rigid monotony that is positively fatiguing.
At times, however, especially in dialogue, his diction takes on more
life, exhibits a certain power and emotion, and even rises to a certain

56 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

sublimity. As already indicated (p. 49), Justin continued to follow,
after his conversion, the profession of philosopher. He is the first, and
among the most eminent, of those Fathers who undertook to bring about
a reconciliation between Christianity and pagan science. At the same
time, it is only by a partisan distortion of his teaching that some modern
writers, like Aube and von Engelhardt, find in it a strange mixture
of Christian and pagan-philosophical elements, to which Platonism
rather than Christianity, has lent both form and colouring. Justin is
a Christian philosopher, thoroughly conscious that with his faith in the
Son of God he has entered a new sphere of truth, has come to
possess the fulness of truth. For him Christianity is the rule by
which he measures the data of philosophy; it is, m all simplicity,
the truth itself; hence in turn all truth is Christian (Apol. ii. 13).
The same Word (Logos) who was manifested fully in Christ, is
germinally (as Aofoq a^spfjLartxoq) in every human soul. In the measure
of their participation in this Word of God, the philosophers and poets
of antiquity were able to know the truth (Apol. ii. 8, 13). All those
who have lived with the Word (o\ fjLzra. Myou ftiwffayreQJ were
Christian, even though they were held to be atheists; such e. g. were
Socrates, Heraclitus, and their peers among the Greeks; Abraham,
Ananias, Azarias, Misael, Elias, and many others among the Barbarians
(Apol. i. 46). It is through the Old Testament that other germs of
truth (ffTtipfj-ara d/^ttziacj were made known to the Greeks. Plato
borrowed from Moses the doctrine of moral freedom ; similarly it was
from the Hebrew prophets that the Greek writers obtained such
knowledge as they had concerning the immortality of the soul,
future retribution, heaven, and the like (Apol. i. 44). Thereby the
relation of pagan culture to Christianity was at least distinctly out
lined. The faith of Christians, according to Justin, is found in the books
of the Old Testament, particularly in the prophets : their words are for
him the words of God, or the Logos, or the Holy Spirit (Apol. i. 33
36 61). The Gospels he cites usually as «memoirs of the Apostles»
(dxofjtv/jfjioyzufjLaTa ~cov &7toor(')hov) ; thereby he, at least, suggests that
Christians held them for inspired and canonical books (dyafwatcrxsTai
Apol. i. 67 ; -(•iypa.-Ta.i Dial. c. 49). The Apocalypse is declareo^to be
a divinely revealed book and written by the Apostle John (Dial. c. Si).
There are also in Justin echoes of the Acts of the Apostles, of all
the Pauline Epistles (excepting the Epistle to Philemon) , of the
Epistle of St. James, the two Epistles of St. Peter, and the first
Epistle of St. John. The account of Christian liturgical customs
furnished by Justin (Apol. i. 61 ff.) is of very great importance; he
oversteps in these paragraphs the limits of the Discipline of the Secret,
and describes with much detail both baptism and the celebration of the
Eucharist. No other Christian apologist imitated him in this disclosure
of the greatest of Christian mysteries.

§ 1 8. TATIAN THE ASSYRIAN. 57

B. Aube, Essai de critique religieuse. De 1'apologe'tique chretienne ail
IIe siecle. St. Justin phil. et mart., Paris, 1861, 1875. £*• Weizsacker, Die
Theologie des Martyrers Justinus, in Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1867), xii.
60 — 119. M. v, Engelhardt, Das Christentum Justins des Martyrers. Eine
Untersuchung liber die Anfange der katholischen Glaubenslehre. Erlangen,
1878. Cf., against Engelhardt, A. Stahlin , Justin der Martyrer und sein
neuester Beurteiler, Leipzig, 1880. J. Sprinzl, Die Theologie des hi. Ju
stinus des Martyrers. Eine dogmengeschichtl. Studie, in Theol.-prakt. Quartal-
schrift (1884 — 1886). C. Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung
des stoisch-christlichen Eudamonismus in Justins Apologie, Studien und
Vorarbeiten, Leipzig, 1890. F. Bosse , Der praexistente Christus des Ju
stinus Martyr, eine Episode aus der Geschichte des christologischen Dogmas
(Dissert, inaug.), Greifswald, 1891. W. Flemming, Zur Beurteilung des Christen-
tums Justins des Martyrers, Leipzig, 1893. K. L. Grube, Darlegung der
hermeneutischen Grundsatze Justins des Martyrers (reprinted from Katholik),
Mainz, 1880. Th. ZaJin , Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1889), i. 2,
463 — 585: «Justinus Martyr und die Apostolischen Schriften». W. Bousset,
Die Evangeliencitate Justins des Martyrers in ihrem Wert fiir die Evangelien-
kritik von neuem untersucht, Gottingen, 1891. A. Baldus, Das Verhaltnis
Justins des Martyrers zu unseren synoptischen Evangelien, Miinster, 1895.
W. Bornemann , Das Taufsymbol Justins des Martyrers, in Zeitschr. fiir
Kirchengesch. (1878 — 1879), iii. 1—27. J. Wilpert, Fractio panis, Freiburg,
1895, PP- 42~65 : «Die eucharistische Feier zur Zeit des hi. Justinus
Martyr». The extraordinary assertion ofHarnack, in Texte und Untersuch.
(1891), vii. 2, 115 — 144, that Justin taught bread and water to be the
«matter» of the Blessed Eucharist has met with no acceptance. Cf. Th. Zahn,
Brot undWein im Abendmahl der alten Kirche, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892;
Funk, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1892), Ixxiv. 643 — 659, and again in Kirchen-
geschichtl. Abhandl. und Untersuch. (1897), i. 278 — 292; A. Jiilichcr , in
Theol. Abhandl. C. v. Weizsacker gewidmet, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 215 — 250.
E. Lippelt , Quae fuerint Justini martyris i^OfiyTjuoveujj-aTa quaque ratione
cum forma Evangeliorum syro-latina consenserint (Diss.), Halle, 1901. J. A.
Cramer, Die Logosstellen in Justins Apologie kritisch untersucht, in Zeit-
schrift fiir die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1901), ii. 300—338. Cramer
maintains that the passages relative to the Logos are not from the pen
of Justin, but were interpolated through the combination of the Apology
with a Judseo-Christian work of Alexandrine origin. Id., De Logosleer
in de Pleitreden von Justins, in Theol. Tijdsscrift (1902), xxxvi. 114 — 159.
W. Liese , Justinus Martyr in seiner Stellung zum Glauben und zur Philo
sophic, in Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol. (1902), xxvi. 560—570.

§ 18. Tatian the Assyrian.

I. HIS LIFE. - Tatian, «born in the land of the Assyrians », be
longs to the Syrian race. He had travelled extensively, and had
earned the reputation of a philosopher and a writer, before he became
a Christian at Rome. This must have taken place previous to the death
of Justin (163 — 167). Irenaeus is witness that Tatian was a « hearer »
of Justin, and belonged to the Christian community at Rome until
the latter's death. Later, probably in 172, Tatian abandoned the
Church, joined the Gnostics, more particularly the Encratites, and
returned to the East. Antioch (Syria), Cilicia, and Pisidia are

58 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

mentioned as the scenes of his activity. We are quite ignorant of
the time and place of his death1.

H. A. Daniel, Tatianus der Apologet, Halle, 1837. Th. Zahn, Tatians
Diatessaron, in Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, Er-
langen, 1881, i. 268 ff. Ad. Harnack, Die Uberlieferung der griechischen
Apologeten (cf. § 13), pp. 196 — 232. In his Gesch. der altchristl. Lite-
ratur, ii. i, 284 ff., Harnack has more or less completely withdrawn his
earlier views concerning the date of Tatian. F. X. Funk, Zur Chronologic
Tatians, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1883), Ixv. 219 — 233, and again in his
Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 142 — 152 e

2. THE APOLOGY. — Only one work of Tatian has been preserved,
an Apology for Christianity or rather a criticism of Hellenism, entitled
IIpoQ vEMr.va<; (Oratio ad Graecos). It begins brusquely with a re
futation of the prejudices of the Greeks (cc. i — 4), and proceeds to
establish two lines of argument in favour of Christianity : its sublime
doctrine (cc. 4 — 31), and its very great antiquity (cc. 31 — 41). In
the first part he combines with his exposition of Christian teaching
concerning God and the world, sin and redemption, a satire of the
opposite errors of the Greeks; at the end (cc. 22 — 29) he quite gives up
the role of an apologist to enter upon that of a polemical writer.
The second part of his work is devoted to proving that, though
Homer marks the beginnings of Greek civilization, art, and science,
Moses antedates him by four hundred years. Therefore, even those
«wise men» of Greece who preceded Homer are more modern than
Moses. As a disciple of Justin his apologetic coincides in many points
with that of his master, while in other points there is a notable dif
ference. Justin treats the thinkers and poets of Greece with great
respect ; his disciple Tatian goes out of his way to belittle and insult
them. He abounds in bitter and excessive denunciation, and ignores
entirely all the praiseworthy features of Greek culture. In his Apology
there is revealed, even more clearly than in his own career, a character
harsh and passionate, and inclined to extreme measures. His style,
likewise, is generally rough and disjointed, though occasionally, owing
to the strength and ardour of his conviction, it assumes a poetic lofti
ness. The purpose of his Apology was to justify his conversion to Chris
tianity, shortly after which event it was published, probably outside
Rome (c. 35), and about 165, when Justin had already passed away
(cc. 1 8. 19). His doctrinal thought is markedly influenced by Stoicism;
it also abounds in phrases and turns of expression capable of being
interpreted as contrary to the doctrines of the Church. Christ, how
ever, is emphatically declared to be God (cc. 13 21). In a very
difficult passage however (c. 5) on the procession of the Word, he
clearly teaches subordinationism.

1 Tat., Orat, cc. I 42 29 35; Clem. Al. , Strom., iii. 12, 81 ; Epipti., Haer.,
xlvi. i; Iren., Adv. haer., i. 28, i; Eus., Chron. ad a. Abraham 2188.

§ 1 8. TATIAN THE ASSYRIAN. 59

We owe the preservation of the Apology to the Arethas-Codex (§ 13).
Unfortunately the quaternions of this codex which contained it were torn
out between the twelfth and the fourteenth century ; in their place we only
have three copies of the codex made in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
The editio princeps is that of J. Frisius (C. Gessner), Zurich, 1546. On the
editions viMorellus, Maranus (Gallandi, Migne~), de Otto (Corpus apolog. vi.),
cf. § 13. The most recent edition is that of Ed. Schwartz (Texte und Unter-
suchungen, iv. i), Leipzig, 1888. Recent German versions are those of
F. Grone, Kempten, 1872 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater), and of Harnack in a
Programme of the University of Gieften (Aug. 25., 1884). There is an English
translation of the Oratio by J. E. Ryland in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am.
ed. 1885), ii. 65 — 83. G. Dembowski, Die Quellen der christl. Apologetik
des 2. Jahrh., part I: Die Apologie Tatians, Leipzig, 1878. B. Ponschab,
Tatians Rede an die Griechen (Progr.), Metten, 1895. R. C. Kukida,
Tatians sog. Apologie, Leipzig, 1900. P. Fiebig, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchen-
geschichte (1901), xxi. 149 — 159. W. Steuer, Die Gottes- und Logoslehre
des Tatian, Giitersloh, 1893. A. Kalkmann, Tatians Nachrichten iiber Kunst-
werke, in Rheinisches Museum fur Philol., new series (1887), xlii. 489 — 524.
R. Kukula , Altersbeweis und Kiinstlerkatalog in Tatians Rede an die
Griechen (Progr.), Wien, 1900. A. Puech, Recherches sur le discours aux
Grecs de Tatien suivies d'une traduction du discours, avec notes, Paris, 1903.
If. U. Meyboom, Tatianus en zijne Apologie, in Theol. Tijdschrift (1903),
xxxvii. 193 — 247.

3. THE DIATESSARON. — There is extant, at least in fragments,
a second work of Tatian, the so-called Diatessaron. It was a Gospel-
harmony, or story of the life and works of Our Lord compiled from
the four canonical Gospels. The Greeks 1 called it TO dia reaadpcov
eua'jr'jrl/^o^j by the Syrians it was entitled the «Evangelion da Mephar-
reshe» 2. Its chronology was framed on that of the fourth Gospel, the
first verses of which served as an introduction. The genealogies were
left out3, and in their place a few apocryphal additions were inserted.
This work is an important witness to the authority of the four canonical
Gospels, and was composed by Tatian in the last years of his life, after
his apostasy, probably not in Greek but in Syriac, though it was based
on the Greek text of the Gospels. During the whole third century, this
harmony was the only Gospel text in use throughout many Christian
communities of Syria, particularly at Edessa. It was only after the
middle of the fourth century that the «Gospel of the Mixed» gradually
gave way, perforce, to the « Gospel of the Separated », i. e. to the
four Gospels. Between 360 and 370, St. Ephraem Syrus wrote a
commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian ; Theodoret of Cyrus, who
died about 458, found it necessary to remove from the churches
of his diocese more than two hundred copies of this work, in the
place of which he put the Syriac version of the four Gospels (Theod. 1. c.).
It is possible to partially reconstruct the Diatessaron by means of
the commentary of St. Ephraem, whose original Syriac text, however,

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 29, 6 ; Theodor., Haeret. fab. coinp., i. 20.
- i. e. Gospel of the Mixed. 3 Mt. i. i ff. ; Lk. iii. 23 ff.

6O FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

is lost, and is represented by an Armenian version. For this pur
pose some Syriac fragments are also accessible, together with two
later revisions of the Diatessaron: one in Latin, preserved in the
Codex Fuldensis of the Vulgate, written at Capua about 545, and one
in Arabic, more recent in date, it is true, but decidedly nearer to
the original text.

The reconstruction of the Diatessaron in Zahn, Tatians Diatessaron,
1881, pp. 112 — 219, is based chietly on the Latin version of the commentary
of Ephraem made by J. B. Aucher and published by G. Mosinger, Venice,
1876. Cf. § 82, 5 for the more recent contributions to our knowledge of this
commentary made by J. Rendel Harris and J. H. Hill. The Latin version
is the work of an anonymous writer who lived about 500 and used the
Latin text of the Gospels, revised by St. Jerome about 383. Victor, bishop
of Capua, who died in 554, caused this recension to be inserted in the
Codex Fuldensis of the New Testament Vulgate, written under his supervision;
it there took the place of the four Gospels. In the preface Victor speaks of
the data furnished by Eusebius concerning the Diatessaron of Tatian (Hist.
eccl., iv. 29, 6) and of the attempts of Ammonius of Alexandria (Ens., Ep.
ad Carpianum) to compile a harmony. This explains why this Latin Gospel-
harmony is sometimes printed under the name of Tatian, and again (Migne,
PL., Ixviii. 251 — 358) under that of Ammonius. There is an excellent edition
of the Codex Fuldensis by E. Ranke, Marburg and Leipzig, 1868. Fr. P. A.
(later Cardinal) Ciasca edited the Arabic revision, Rome, 1888, from two
manuscripts, and added a Latin translation. Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Hogg
translated the Arabic text into English in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library
(additional volume), Edinburgh, 1897, pp. 33 — 138. Some new Syriac frag
ments were published by H. Goussen, in Studia theologica, Leipzig, 1895,
i. 62—67. Amid the copious literature on the Diatessaron the book of Zahn,
cited above, is especially worthy of mention. Cf. the continuation of Zahn's
own studies, in his Forschnngen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons
(1883), ii. 286 — 299, and in his Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons (1888),
i. i, 369—429; (1892), ii. 2, 530—556. Cf. also J. P. P. Martin, in Revue
des questions historiques (1883), xxxiii. 349 — 394; (1888), xliv. 5- 50. On
the Arabic version the reader may consult E. Sellin in Zahn, Forschungen
zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1891), iv. 225 — 246. « Zur Geschichte
von Tatian's Diatessaron im Abendland» cf. Zahn, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.
(1894), v. 85 — 120. M. Maker, Recent Evidence for the Authenticity of
the Gospels: Tatian's Diatessaron, London, 1893. A. Hjelt, Die altsyrischen
Evangelien-Ubersetztmgen und Tatians Diatessaron, besonders in ihrem
gegenseitigen Verhaltnis tmtersucht, Leipzig, 1901. H. Gressmann, Studien
zum syrischen Tetraevangelium, i., in Zeitschr. fiir die neutestamentl. Wissen-
schaft (1904), pp. 175, 248—252. F. Crawford Burkitt , Evangelion da
Mepharreshe, The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the read
ings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence, etc.,
Cambridge University Press, 1904, i. xix, 556; ii (introduction and notes)
vii, 322. J. F. Stenning, (art.) «Diatessaron» v& Hastings' Diet, of the Bible
(extra vol., 1904) pp. 451 — 461.

4. LOST WRITINGS. - Other works of Tatian have entirely
perished. He mentions in his Apology (c. 15) a work «On animals»
(Trspt £w(ovj, and another (c. 16) in which he treated of the nature
of demons. He promised a book (c. 40) « Against those who have
treated of divine things* fapuQ TOUQ dito^T^a^ivo^ ™ nspl &souj, per-

§ I Q. MILTIADES. APOLLINARIS OF HIERAPOLIS. MELITO OF SARDES. 6 1

haps a refutation of heathen anti-Christian calumnies. Rhodon, a
disciple of Tatian, mentions1 a «Book of problems» (irpoftfajpLdTotv
fUtfiMov), in which Tatian undertook to demonstrate the existence of
errors and antilogies in the Sacred Scriptures (of the Old Testament).
Clement of Alexandria mentions and refutes2 a work of Tatian «On
perfection according to the precepts of the Saviour » (Ttspl TOO xara.
TOV (jcorr^oa. xarapTifffiouJ. We learn from Eusebius3 that « Meta
phrases » or corrections of certain sayings of St. Paul were attributed
to Tatian.

The « testimonial relative to the lost writings are to be found in
the current editions of the « O ratio »; de Otto, pp. i64sq. , and Schwartz,
pp. 48 sq.

§ 19. Miltiades. Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Melito of Sardes.

1. MILTIADES. - - Miltiades of Asia Minor was a contemporary
of Tatian, and perhaps also a disciple of Justin4. He defended
the Christian truth against pagans, Jews and heretics, but all his
writings have fallen a prey to time. We know from later writers
that he composed a work against the Montanists 5 in which he sought
to prove that a prophet should not speak in ecstacy fas pi TOO fiy
0£?y npoyyrqv ev Ixardffet AaAewJ, and another against the Valentinian
Gnostics (Tert. 1. c.), also a work in two books against the heathens

/Jyvaq), another in two books against the Jews (r.pbc, 'loo-
and an Apology for « Christian philosophy)) addressed to
« temporal rulers » 6.

The « testimonial relative to Miltiades are given by de Otto, Corpus
Apolog. , ix. 364 — 373; cf. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristl. Literatur,
i. 255 ff. ; ii. i, 361 if.

2. APOLLINARIS. - - Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis,
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, left a number of works. Eusebius
mentions7 a «Defence of the Christian faith » presented to Marcus Au
relius, apparently in 172, five books against the Pagans (-pb$'t])j.rtva.z)t
two books on Truth faspl dAy&eiasJ, a Circular Letter against the Mon
tanists with the « subscriptions)) or opinions of other bishops, a work
On Easter8 (nspl TOL> 7rdff%aj, and one on Religion frrspl suffsftztaQj^,
identical perhaps with the «Defence of the Christian faith». All of
these writings have perished.

1 Ens., Hist, eccl., v. 13, 8. 2 Strom., iii. 12, 81.

3 Hist, eccl., iv. 29, 6.

4 Tertull., Adv. Valent, c. 5; Hippolytus in Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 28, 4.

5 Anonym, apud Ens. 1. c., v. 17, i. 6 £us. 1. c., v. 17, 5.

7 Ib., iv. 26, i; 27; Chron. ad a. Abraham 2187: Hist, eccl., iv. 27; ib., v. 19.

8 It is twice cited in the Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, pp. 13 — 14.

9 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 14.

62 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

The «testimonia» and fragments are in Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, 2. ed.,
i. 155 — 174; de Otto 1. c., ix. 479—495. Cf. Harnack 1. c., i. 243 — 246;
ii. i, 358 sq. ; Zahn , Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons,
(1893), v. 3sq.

3. MELITO. - - Still more extensive and varied was the literary
activity of a third native of Asia Minor, Melito, bishop of Sardes in
Lydia. He died before 194 — 195 «a eunuch» (i. e. unmarried), and «in
all his life and works filled with the Holy Spirit », widely honoured also
as a prophet1. Eusebius and Anastasius Sinaita were acquainted with
the following works of Melito: a) a brief Apology for the Christian
faith, presented to Marcus Aurelius perhaps in 172, some fragments
of which are extant2; b) two books on Easter (nepl TOO izdaya) com
posed during the proconsulate of Servilius Paulus, or rather, as Ru-
finus states, in that of Sergius Paulus, perhaps 166 — 167 (Bus., Hist,
eccl. iv. 26, 2 — 3); c) On the Right Way of Living and the Pro
phets (xspl xoAtTsiac; xal xpoyr/Tcov, id. 1. c. iv. 26, 2; Hier. 1. c. :
De vita prophetarum), probably a work against Montanism; d) On
the Church fas pi sxx/ymaq, Eus.; e) On Sunday (xspl xupiax9JQ id.)\

f) On the Nature of Man fas pi (poczcoq, al. TziarecoQ, avftpconoo, id.)\

g) On the Creation of Man fnspl xAdaecoQ, id.) ; h) On the Obedience
of Faith fjrspl bnaxor/Q TiictTZtoQ, id.) ; i) On the Senses fxspl oiiaxo^c,
rriffTEd)^ alaftTjTqp'uov, id.). According to other text-witnesses this title
is corrupt , and contains really two titles ; k) On Baptism (xspl Aoo-
Tpoo, id.)\ 1) On Truth (izepl aArfteiac,, id.)] m) On the Creation and
Birth of Christ (xzpl xriasoiQ xal "fzviazcoc, Xpiarou, id.); n) On Pro
phecy (xspl -poprjTslaZi id.; Rufinus, Prophetia eius; Hier., De pro-
phetia sua, probably against Montanism) ; o) On Hospitality fnspl <ptAo-

Q, Eus.) ; p) The Key f'H zAeic, id.) ; q) On the Devil (mpt TOO
id.) ; r) On the Revelation of John fnepl TOO diaftbXoo xal
oG 'Icodvvoo, id. ; Rufinus , De diabolo, De revelatione
loannis; Hier., De diabolo, De apocalypsi loannis); s) On the Cor
poreity of God (ftepl IvGcu/jLaTou #£oo, Eus. ; nspl TOO syffat^aTov slvat
TOV fts/w, Orig., Sel. in Gen. ad i. 26); t) Extracts ("ExXofat, Eus.),
i. e. « Extracts from the Law and the Prophets concerning our Saviour
and our entire faith » in six books. Eusebius gives (1. c. iv. 26, 12 — 14)
the preface of the work ; u) On the Passion of the Lord (elq TO xdttoQ,
Anast. Sin., Viae dux, c. 12, a short citation); v) On the Incarnation
of Christ (nspl aapxaxjecoc, XpioToo), an anti-Marcionite work, in at least
three books, id. 1. c. c. 13, a rather long citation. All these works are
lost. Besides the already cited fragments there remain four scholia on
the sacrifice of Isaac as a type of the Crucifixion of Christ. They were
taken, probably, from the « Extracts » mentioned by Eusebius, but were

1 Polycr. in Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 24, 5. Tertull. in Hier., De vir. ill. c. 24.

2 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 13, 8; 26, I — 2; 5 — 11; Chron. ad a. Abr. 2187; Chron.
Pasch. ed. Dindorf, 483.

§ IQ. MILTIADES. APOLLINARIS OF HIERAPOLIS. MELITO OF SARDES. 63

already corrupted by spurious additions. There is also an interesting
fragment on the baptism of the Lord in the Jordan, very probably
from the homonymous work in the catalogue of Eusebius. Four
fragments, preserved in Syriac only, ought to be considered as be
longing to Melito: ex Tractatu de anima et corpore, ex Sennone de
cruce, De fide, Melitonis episcopi urbis Attic ae ; in other codices, it
is true, they bear the name of Alexander of Alexandria (f 328). On
the other hand, Melito is not the author of an Apology that has come
down to us in Syriac, entitled Oratio Melitonis p kilos op hi quae habita
est cor am Antonino Caesar e. It is an energetic polemic against polytheism
and idolatry, akin to the Apology of the Athenian Aristides, very pro
bably of Syriac origin, and belonging to the end of the second or the be
ginning of the third century; and the Syriac text is probably not a
translation but the original. An Armenian fragment of four lines, ex Me
litonis epistola ad Eutrepium, and several Latin treatises, De passione
S. Joannis Evangelistae, De transitu B. Mariae Virginis, Clavis Scrip
turae, Catena in Apocalypsin, are wrongly ascribed to him. Cardinal
Pitra, the editor of the extensive Clavis Scripturae, tried to recognize
in it a translation or rather a revision and enlargement of the «Key»
of Melito, mentioned in Eusebius. In reality it is a biblical glossary
compiled from Augustine, Gregory the Great, and other Latin Fathers.
At the present it cannot be more precisely dated ; we know however
that no attempt was made to identify it with the «Key» before the
eleventh century.

The «testimonia» and the fragments are in Routh 1. c., i. in — 153;
de Otto 1. c., ix. 374 — 478, 497 — 512. Cf. Harnack 1. c., i. 246 — 255; ii.
i, 358 if., 517 ff., 522 if. C. Thomas, Melito von Sardes, Osnabriick, 1893.
The Greek fragment «on Baptism » was edited by Pitra, Analecta Sacra
(1884), ii. 3 — 5; for its textual criticism see J. M. Mercati , in Theol.
Quartalschr. (1894), Ixxvi. 597 — 600.

The Syriac Apology and the four Syriac fragments were first edited
by W. Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, London, 1855. All these fragments,
Syriac and Latin (with exception of the fourth), as edited by E. Renan,
are to be found in Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. (1855), ii. de Otto gives (1. c.)
all the Syriac fragments (pp. 497 — 512), also the Latin (pp. 419—432); cf.
pp. 453 — 478. There is a German version of the Apology (from the Syriac)
by B. Welte, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1862), xliv. 384 — 410, and another from
the Latin version of v. Otto, by V. Grone, in Bibliothek der Kirchenvater,
Kempten, 1873. For tne Apology cf. Harnack 1. c., ii. i, 522 ff., and the
literature there indicated. On the four fragments see G. Kruger, in Zeitschr.
fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1888), xxxi. 434 — 448; Thomas 1. c., pp. 40 — 51.
The four Armenian lines ex Melitonis epistola ad Eutrepium are in Pitra,
Analecta Sacra (1883), iv. 16 292. The Clavis Scripturae was twice edited
by Pitra: in its longer form in Spicil. Solesm. (1855), ii — iii. i, and in the
shorter, more original form, in Analecta Sacra (1884), ii. For more
specific information see O. Rottmanncr, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1896), Ixxviii.
614 — 629. For the other Latin writings mentioned above cf. Harnack 1. c.,
i. 252 — 254. H. Jordan, Melito und Novatian, in Archiv fur latein. Lexiko-
graphie imd Grammatik (1902), xii. 59—68.

64 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

§ 20. Athenagoras of Athens.

1. HIS LIFE. --In the title of his Apology, whose manuscript-tradi
tion can be traced to the year 914, Athenagoras is called the « Christian
philosopher of Athens » ('A&yvcuoG, (cO.oaoyoQ, xptanavoq). Very unreliable,
however, are the data that an anonymous writer on the Alexandrine
teachers pretends to have found in the « Christian History » of Philippus
Sidetes (§ 79, 2). According to them Athenagoras presented an Apo
logy to Hadrian and Antoninus (Pius), and was the first master of the
Alexandrine catechetical school. The introduction to the Apology is
a proof that it was addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and
was, therefore, composed between November 176 and March 1 80

- probably in 1 77. It is possible that the hypothesis of Zahn is correct :
he identifies our Athenagoras with another of the same name to
whom, after 1 80, Boethus of Alexandria dedicated his book « on the
difficult expressions in Plato »1.

Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 256 — 258; ii. i, 317 — 319
710. A. Eberhard, Athenagoras (Progr.)j Augsburg, 1895.

2. HIS WORKS. — The purpose of his Apology or « Supplication » for
the Christians (xpeafida Kepi /piffrtavwv, Supplicatio seu legatio pro Chri-
stianis) is to show the absurdity of the calumnies current against them,
viz. atheism, Thyestean banquets, Oedipean incest (c. 3). The first accu
sation is very solidly refuted by a splendid exposition and demonstration
of the Christian doctrine concerning God (cc. 4 — 30). The other two
imputations are disproved by a brief resume of the principles of Chris
tian morality (cc. 32 — 36). It is only en passant that the Apology deals
polemically with heathenism; otherwise in contents it closely re
sembles the Dialogue of Minucius Felix, though it cannot be shown
that the latter made use of the work of Athenagoras. The only certain
traces of its presence in ancient Christian literature are found in
Methodius of Olympus 2, and in Philippus Sidetes, as described above.
Still less attention was paid in antiquity to his work «On the Resurrection
of the dead» (Hspl dvaardazwc, vzxp&y). In the Arethas-Codex of 914
it follows the Apology and is attributed to the same author. No other
witness to this work is forthcoming ; nevertheless, there is no reason
to deny the assertion of the manuscript, all the more as Athenagoras
himself, at the end of his Apology (c. 36, al. 37), promises a discussion
of the doctrine of the resurrection. The work is divided into two
parts. In the first the objections against the possibility of the re
surrection are refuted (cc. i — 10); in the second (cc. n — 25) the
author undertakes to prove the reality of the resurrection : a) from the
destination of man, and of every rational creature, to be and live without
end; b) from human nature, a synthesis of soul and body (cc. 14 — 17);

1 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 155.

2 De resurr., i. 37, i. (ed. BonwetscJi).

§ 21. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH. 65

c) from the necessity of a retribution, not alone for the soul but for
the body (cc. 1 8 — 23); d) from the last end (riXoQ) of man, that is
unattainable in this life (cc. 24 — 25).

All the known codices of the Apology and the treatise on the Resurrec
tion are based on one archetype, the Arethas-Codex (§ 13). The treatise
on the Resurrection was first edited by P. Nannius (Louvain, 1541), and
the Apology by C. Gesner (Zurich, 1557). For the editions of both by Morelli
and Maranus (Gallandi, Migne) , de Otto (Corpus apolog. vii.) cf. § 13.
The most recent edition is that by Ed. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1891 (Texte und
Untersuchungen , iv. 2). Both works were translated into German by
Al. Bieringer , Kempten, 1875 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater). There is an
English translation by B. P. Pratten , in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.
1885), ii. 129—162. C. y. Hefele, Beitrage ztir Kirchengesch. , Archao-
logie und Liturgik, Tubingen, 1864, i. 60 — 86: «Lehre des Athenagoras
und Analyse seiner Schriften.» R. Forster, Uber die altesten Herabilder,
nebst einem Exkurs liber die Glaubwiirdigkeit der kunstgeschichtl. An-
gaben des Athenagoras (Progr.), Breslau, 1868. L. Arnould, De Apologia
Athenagorae, Paris, 1898.

3. CHARACTERISTICS. Athenagoras is a very attractive writer. In
originality of thought he yields, possibly, to his predecessors Justin
and Tatian, but he far surpasses them in felicity of expression, purity
and beauty of diction, simplicity and lucidity of arrangement. He is
well acquainted with the Greek classics. His Apology even betrays
a certain fondness for the citation of poets and philosophers. In
accord with Justin, and in opposition to Tatian, he exhibits a friendly
attitude toward Greek philosophy, especially Platonism. Out of the
treasure of Christian doctrine he selects only such principles as seem
best adapted to blunt the edge of heathen calumny. For him
the witnesses and guarantors of Christian faith are the prophets,
« Moses, Isaias, Jeremias, and the others » whose mouth acted as an
organ of the Holy Spirit, even as the flute is the organ of the flute-
player (Supplic. cc. 7 9). The rational proof of the unity of God
(c. 8) merits attention, as it is the first scientific attempt of the Chris
tians to justify their monotheism. He bears witness to the Blessed
Trinity with almost startling clearness and precision (see especially c. 10).

F. Schiibring, Die Philosophic des Athenagoras (Progr.), Berlin, 1882.
A. Joannides, UpaYjxaTeia rep! rrj? Trap' 'A»>Y]va70pa cpiXasocpixyjc Yvwaeuc (Dissert,
inaug.), Jena, 1883. J. Lehmann, Die Auferstehungslehre des Athenagoras
(Inaug.-Dissert.), Leipzig, 1890. P. Logothetes , CH UeoXoyia TOO 'A^va-fopou
(Dissert, inaug.), Leipzig, 1893. A. Pommrich, Des Apologeten Theophilus
von Antiochien Gottes- und Logoslehre, dargestellt unter Beriicksichtigung
der gleichen Lehre des Athenagoras von Athen, Dresden, 1902.

§ 21. Theophilus of Antioch.

I. HIS LIFE. Theophilus is the sixth or, including St. Peter, the
seventh bishop of Antioch 1. Eusebius relates that Theophilus became

1 Eus., Chron. ad a. Abraham 2185; Hist, eccl., iv. 20. St. Jet:, De viris illustr.,
c. 25; Ep. 121, 6.

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. c

66 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

bishop of that see in 169, and his successor Maximinus in 177*. The
latter date conflicts with the fact that the last of the three books
Ad Autolycum, which Eusebius himself says 2 were written by Theo-
philus, must have been composed some little time after the death
of Marcus Aurelius (March 17, 180; op. cit. cc. 27 — -28). Taking
the contradiction for granted, it is better to assume with Harnack
that the second date is erroneous than to admit with Erbes another
and a later Theophilus as author of the books Ad Autolycum. From
internal evidence it appears (i. 14) that the author had reached a
mature age when he abandoned heathenism for Christianity; that his
home was not far from the Euphrates and the Tigris, and that he
was probably born in that neighbourhood (ii. 24) ; that he had received
the training of an Hellene, but possessed also a certain knowledge
of Hebrew (ii. 12, 24; iii. 19).

C. Erbes, Die Lebenszeit des Hippolytus nebst der des Theophilus von
Antiochien, in Jahrbticher fiir prot. Theol. (1888), xiv. 611 — 656. Harnack)
Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 496—502; ii. 208 — 213 319 ff. 534 ff.

2. THE THREE BOOKS AD AUTOLYCUM. The three books xpOQ
A'jroXoxov are held together by a slender thread. If it be true that
the third book was composed about 181 — 182, the other two may
well have been written at a much earlier date. In the first book,
apropos of a conversation with his heathen friend Autolycus, the
author treats of the faith of Christians in an invisible God (cc. 2 — n)
and of the name « Christian » (c. 12). As a complement and illustration
of the first book, the second discusses the folly of heathen idolatry
(cc. 2 — 8) and offers a comprehensive view of the teachings of the
prophets, «men of God and representatives of the Holy Spirit »
(cc. 9 — 38). The third book shows the futility of the anti- Christian
calumnies (Thyestean banquets and Oedipean incest, cc. 4 — 15), and
offers proof that the Sacred Scriptures of the Christians are much older
than the beginnings of Greek history and literature, older even than the
mythological epoch of the Greeks (cc. 1 6 — 29). The style of Theophilus
is smooth and unembarrassed, vigorous and lively ; a characteristic trait
is his recognition of the subjective conditions of faith and the depen
dence of religious knowledge on purity of mind (i. 2 ff ). He attributes
an identical authority to the writings of the Evangelists (ii. 22; iii. 12),
to the Epistles of St. Paul (iii. 14), and to the Prophets (ii. 9; iii. 12).
He is the first to use the term rpiac, to indicate the distinction of
persons in the Godhead (ii. 1 5)

The books Ad Autolycum have come down to us in the eleventh-century
Codex Marcianus 496, and of others that depend upon it. J. Frisius
(C. Gesner) published the editio princeps, Zurich, 1546; for later editions
see § 13. The most recent is that of de Otto, Corp. apolog., viii. A German

1 Chron. ad a. Abraham 2185 2193. 2 Hist, eccl., iv. 24.

§ 21. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH. 6/

version was made by J. Leitl (Bibl. der Kirchenvater), Kempten, 1873. There
is an English translation by M. Dods , in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.
1885), ii. 89 — 121. For the concept of faith in this work of Theophilus
cf. L. Paul, in Jahrbiicher fur prot. Theol. (1875), i- 546 — 559- The eyi'
dence of Theophilus to the Canon of the New Testament is treated by
Harnack, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (1889 — 1890), xi. i — 21. For his
teaching concerning God cf. G. Karabangeles, Leipzig, 1891 (Dissert, inaug.),
and O. Gross, Chemnitz, 1896 (Progr.). A. Pommrich, Des Apologeten
Theophilus von Antiochien Gottes- und Logoslehre, etc. , Dresden, 1902.
O. Clausen, Die Theologie des Theophilus von Antiochien, in Zeitschr. fur
wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 81 — 141; (1903), xlvi. 195 — 213.

3. LOST WRITINGS. Theophilus often refers to a previous work
of his, the first book of which was entitled "K£p\ iaropicov; it dealt
with the earliest history of mankind (ii. 30). The citations of John
Malalas (ed. Dindorf 2^ al. 59) from a «Theophilus chronographer»
are very probably not from this work. — Eusebius mentions * a work
of Theophilus, Against the heresy of Hermogenes (npoQ ~yv alpemv
'Ep/iofevovgj, some catechetical writings (TWO. xarqyrjTtxa ftifitiaj men
tioned also by St. Jerome2, and a work against Marcion fxara Map-
XIWVOQ). St. Jerome mentions also (ibid.) two works current under the
name of Theophilus : Commentaries on the Gospel 3, and on the
Proverbs of Solomon (in Evangelium et in Proverbia Salomonis com-
mentarii). De la Bigne published (1575) under the name of Theo
philus a Latin Commentary on the Gospels, an unorderly collection
of allegorical scholia on excerpts from the four Gospels. It ought
not to be identified, as is done by Zahn, with the Commentary
described by St. Jerome, nor should it be attributed to Theophilus.
It is rather, what Harnack has proved it to be, a compilation from
Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, the pseudo-Arnobius Junior, and Au
gustine, put together by a Latin compiler, probably in Southern Gaul,
and toward the end of the fifth century. In three ancient manuscripts,
unknown to Zahn, there is a prologue to the work in which the an
onymous author says that his labours are an anthology from earlier
expositors (tractatoribus defloratis opusculum spiritale composui).

Editions of the pseudo-Theophilus-commentary on the Gospels are found
in De la Bigne, Bibl. SS. Patrum, Paris, 1575, v. 169 — 192 ; de Otto, Corpus
apolog., viii. 278 — 326; Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl.
Kanons (1883), ii. 29 — 85. For the three codices discovered since that
date cf. Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen (1883), i. 4, 159 — 175;
Pitra, Analecta Sacra (1884), ii. 624 — 634, 649 — 650; Zahn 1. c., ii. (Der
Evangelienkommentar des Theophilus von Antiochien), also (1884), iii.
198 — 277; Harnack 1. c., pp. 97 — 176 (Der angebliche Evangelienkommen
tar des Theophilus von Antiochien), and Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1886,
pp. 404 f. A. Hauck, in Zeitschrift fiir kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl.

1 Hist, eccl., iv. 24.

2 De viris illustr., c. 25: breves elegantesque tractatus ad aedificationem ecclesiae
pertinentes.

3 Cf. also Ep. 121, 6; Comm. in Matth., praef.

68 FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECJION.

Leben (1884), v. 561 — 568; W. Sanday, in Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1885,
pp. 89 — 101 ; W. Bornemann, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (1888 — 1889),
x. 169 — 252, also took part in the controversy.

§ 22. The Letter to Diognetus.

Under the name of Justin Martyr there has been handed down
in a codex of the thirteenth or fourteenth century a Letter to Dio
gnetus (TTOOC, AwyvriTov), which purposes to reply to certain questions
asked by a heathen much interested in Christianity. These questions
deal with the specific nature of the Christian adoration of God in
contradistinction to the pagan and the Jewish worship, the sur
prising change of life and the remarkable love for their neighbour
that the Christians exhibit. It is further asked why this new
religion should have appeared now, and not at an earlier period.
The replies to these questions are distinguished for elevation of
tone, profound grasp of the Christian ideas, magnificence and
splendour of exposition. The portrait of the daily life of the Chris
tians is positively fascinating (cc. 5 — 6). The theme is exhausted in
the tenth chapter; what is read in cc. u — 12 of the codex does
not belong to the original Letter. Nor does the codex deserve
credence as to the author of the document, whose fine classical dic
tion is quite irreconcilable with the unstudied, unornamented and
unimpassioned style of Justin. Regarding the letter we have no
information from extrinsic sources. Donaldson attempted to show that
it was an academic exercise in style or declamation, belonging to the
fifteenth or sixteenth century. But the date of the codex suffices to
discredit this hypothesis. Internal evidence would show that the work
belongs to the era of the persecutions (cc. 5 7). It does not belong,
therefore, to the post-Constantinian period, as Overbeck asserts, but
rather to the second or third century. In the absence of more posi
tive evidence it is difficult to assign a more precise date, though the
earlier one seems preferable. In this case the recipient of the Letter
might have been Diognetus, the well-known preceptor of Marcus
Aurelius. The authorship has been variously attributed; by Bunsen
to Marcion, by Draseke to Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, by
Doulcet, Kihn, and Kriiger to Aristides of Athens. The latter hypo
thesis alone merits attention. There is an undeniable relationship
between the two documents ; but something more is needed to
render probable an identity of authorship or even a contemporaneous
composition of both works.

The Letter to Diognetus reached us in only one manuscript, the Codex
Argentoratensis 9 (§ 17, 2). It was destroyed by the fire of Strasburg in the
siege of 1870. The editio princeps is that of H. Stephanus , Paris, 1592.
Later it was printed among the works of Justin (§ 17, 2) by de Otto, Corpus
apolog. (1879), »i- 158 — 211, and more recently among the works of the
Apostolic Fathers by von Gebhardt and Harnack, Barnabae epist. (1878),

§ 23. HERMIAS. 69

pp. 142 — 164, and by Funk, Opera Patr. apostol. (1878, 1887, 1901),
i. 310 — 333. The latter editor was the first to make use (1901) of an
ancient copy of Codex Argentoratensis 9, preserved at Tubingen. The
Letter has been often translated into modern languages. We are indebted
for a new German rendering to W. Heinzdmann, Erfurt, 1896. There is an
English translation by Roberts and Donaldson, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am.
ed. 1885), i. 25 — 30. Cf. y. Donaldson, A Critical History of Christian
Literature and Doctrine, London, 1866, ii. 126 — 142. Fr. Overbeck, Uber
den pseudo-justinischen Brief an Diognet (Progr.) , Basel, 1872, reprinted
with additions in the same author's Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche,
Schloft Chemnitz, 1875, i. i — 92. J. Draseke , Der Brief an Diognetos,
Leipzig, 1 88 1 , a reprint from Jahrbticher fur prot. Theol. (1881), vii.
H. Kihn, Der Ursprung des Briefes an Diognet, Freiburg, 1882. G. Kriiger
defended, in Zeitschr. far wissenschaftl. Theol. (1894), xxxvii. 206 — 223, the
authorship of Aristides, but later he abandoned this opinion of Kihn , in
his Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, appendices, Freiburg, 1897. For the
relations between the Letter and the Apology of Aristides cf. R. Seeberg,
in Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1893), v.
239 — 243. Kihn, Zum Briefe an Diognet, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1902),
Ixxxiv. 495 — 498. G. N. Bonwetsch has shown that cc. i — 12 of the
Letter to Diognetus belong to Hippolytus. F. X. Funk, Das Schluftkapitel
des Diognetenbriefes, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1903), Ixxxv. 638 — 639.

§ 23. Hermias.

Under the title, «A Mockery of Heathen Philosophers by the
Philosopher Hermias* CEpp.siou <f>do06<pou dtaffupfjt&Q TWV £$a) <ptXo~

at'upwy, Irrisio gentilium philosophorum), a small work has come down
that sets forth, in a satirical way, the contradictory opinions of Greek
philosophers concerning the human soul (cc. I — 2) and the funda
mental principles of the universe (cc. 3 — 10). The author exhibits
wit and ability, but is superficial, inasmuch as he constantly fails to
seize or to realize the respective cohesion of the theses of the philo
sophers. This work is never mentioned in Christian antiquity, and in
the text itself there are no clear traces of its actual date. However, the
author does not belong, as Diels thinks, to the fifth or sixth century,
but rather to the second or third. Hermias bears the title of «philo-
sopher» in common with several apologists of the second and third
centuries: Aristides, Justin, Athenagoras, and the pseudo-Melito. The
attitude and tendency of his work, its polemical bitterness and lively
diction, point, apparently, to the period of the earliest intellectual conflict
of youthful Christianity with Hellenic philosophy. Certain indications
that the writer made use of the Cohortatio ad Gentiles of the pseudo-
Justin1, do not justify the opinion that the work was of a later
date than we have indicated.

For the manuscript-tradition cf. Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. Lite
ratur, i. 782 f. The cditio princcps is that of J. Oporinus , Basel, 1553.

1 Compare respectively Irris., cc. I 5, with Cohort., cc. 7 31. In the latter pas
sages, however, it seems better to admit the use, by both writers, of a third source :
i. e. Pseudo-Pint., De placitis phil., i. 7, 4.

J7Q FIRST PERIOD. SECOND SECTION.

Other editions are those of Morelli and Maranus (Gallandi, Migne), v. Otto,
Corpus apolog., ix. i — 31; cf. xl. — li. and § 13. The most recent edition
is that of H. Dieh , Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, 1879, PP- 649 — 656, cf.
pp. 259 to 263. A German version by J. Leitl is found in the Bibl. der
Kirchenvater, Kempten, 1873.

§ 24. Minucius Felix.

I. THE DIALOGUE «OCTA\TUS». This Latin apology for Chris
tianity is in every way worthy to rank with the preceding Greek works
of the same nature. It is-thrown into the form of a Dialogue between
the Christian Octavius Januarius and the heathen Caecilius Natalis,
both friends of the author Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer (causidicus) .
It opens in a very lively manner : the disputants are seated by the sea
at Ostia, having chosen Minucius Felix as arbiter of their controversy
(cc. I — 4). Caecilius advocates the teaching of the Skeptics, yet de
fends the faith of his fathers as the one source of Roman greatness ;
Christianity is an unreasonable and immoral illusion (cc. 5 — ^-3}-
Octavius follows closely the arguments of Caecilius, makes a drastic
expose of the follies of polytheism , and refutes the usual anti-
Christian calumnies (adoration of the head of an ass, of the genitalia
of the clergy, Thyestean banquets, Oedipean incest, atheism) and
closes with a touching portrait of the faith and life of the Christians
(cc. 1 6 — 38). No arbiter's judgment is needed, as Caecilius admits
his defeat. For artistic composition and graceful treatment of the
given theme none of the second or third century Christian apologies
can be compared to the «Octavius». The De natura deorum of Cicero
was apparently the author's model. He certainly made use of this
work of Cicero and of his De divinatione, likewise of the De pro-
videntia and De superstitione of Seneca. A generous humanitarian
tone pervades the entire work. The monotheistic character of Chris
tianity is constantly insisted on (c. 18). Its most important feature
is the practical morality it inculcates (c. 32, 3). The author does
not mention the Christian mysteries, nor does he make use of the
Sacred Scriptures (cf. however c. 34, 5). At the same time we
cannot admit with Kiihn that Minucius furnishes no more than «an
ethnico-philosophical concept of Christianity ». His work is an ex
position of the genuine Christian truth, but executed in a manner
suitable to impress the philosophical circles of heathenism.

The Dialogue has reached us only through Codex Parisinus 1661 of
the ninth century (and a copy of the sixteenth century), in which it appears
as the eighth book of Arnobius' Adversus nationes. The first editors were
F. Sabaeus, Rome, 1543, and Fr. Balduin, Heidelberg, 1560. Later it was
edited or reprinted by C. de Muralt, Zurich, 1836; Migne } PL., iii. (Paris,
1844); J. B. Kayser, Paderborn, 1863; C. Halm, Vienna, 1867 (Corpus
script, eccles. lat. , ii.); J. J. Cornelissen , Leyden, 1882; E. Bdhrens,
Leipzig, 1886. The best of these editions is that by Halm. It is reprinted

§ 24. MINUCIUS FELIX. 7!

in Bibliotheca Ss. Patrum, Rome, 1901. For new contributions to the
textual criticism of « Octavius » cf. Teuffel-Schwabe, Gesch. der romischen
Literatur, 5. ed., pp. 931 1317, and J. Vahlen, in Index lect. Berol. per
sem. aest. a (1894), also in Hermes (1895), xxx- 3^5 — 39°- C. Synnerberg,
Randbemerkungen zu Minucius Felix, Berlin, 1897. Translations into German
have been made by A. Bieringer, Kempten, 1871 (Bibliothek der Kirchen-
vater) ; B. Dombart, Erlangen, 1875 — 1%fl6'i 2- ed- (text oi Halm], 1881 ;
H. Hage.n, Berne, 1890. There is an English translation by R. E. Wallis, in
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), iv. 173 — 198. E. Behr, Der Octavius
des M. Minucius Felix in seinem Verhaltnis zu Ciceros Blichern De natura
deorum (Dissert, inaug.), Gera, 1870. Concerning the models and «fontes» of
the Dialogue cf. Th. Keim, Celsus' Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873, pp. 151 — 168 ;
G. Losche, in Jahrb. fur prot. Theol. (1882), viii. 168—178; P. de Ftlice,
Etude sur 1'Octavius de Minucius Felix (These), Blois, 1880. R. Kiihn, Der
Octavius des Minucius Felix, eine heidnisch-philosophische Auffassung vom
Christentum, Leipzig, 1882. Against Kiihn cf. O. Grillnbcrger , in Jahrb.
fur Philos. u. spekul. Theol. (1889), iii. 104 — 118, 146—161, 260 — 269;
B. Seiller, De sermone Minuciano (Progr.), Vienna, 1893. There is an ex
haustive bibliography of «Octavius» in J. P. Waltzing, Bibliographic raisonnee
de Minucius Felix, in Museon beige (1902), vi. 216 — 261. Minucius Felix,
Octavius, in usum lectionum suarum, ed. J. P. Waltzing, Louvain, 1903.
Octavius, rec. et praefatus est H, Boenig, Leipzig, 1903. Cf. O. Boiler o,
«L' Octavius » de M. Minucio Felice e le sue relazioni con la coltura classica,
in Rivista filosofica, 1903; C. Synnerberg, Randbemerkungen zu Minucius
Felix, Helsingfors-Berlin, 1903, ii; G. Bossier, L'Octavius de Minucius Felix,
in La fin du paganisme, 3. ed., Paris, 1898, i. 261 — 289; F. X. Burger, Uber
das Verhaltnis des Minucius Felix zu dem Philosophen Seneca (Dissert.),
Miinchen, 1904; G. Thiancourt, Les premiers apologistes chretiens a Rome
et les traites philosophiques de Ciceron, Paris, 1904.

2. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE. We know no more of the events of
the author's life. He tells us himself (cc. 1—4) that in his later years
only had he come forth «from deepest obscurity into the light of wis
dom and truth ». Lactantius1 seems to suppose that Minucius preceded
Tertullian ; Jerome 2, on the contrary, is surely of the opinion that
Tertullian wrote previously to Minucius. There is indeed a close
resemblance between the «Octavius» and the «Apologeticum» of
Tertullian, written in 197. We believe with Ebert, Schwenke, Reck,
and others that it is Tertullian who made use of Minucius, and not,
as earlier writers (and recently Massebieau) have held, Minucius who
used the writings of Tertullian. Still less tenable is the theory of
Hartel and Wilhelm that we must suppose a third source common
to both, but no longer discoverable. There are other evidences of
the priority of Minucius. Pronto of Cirta, who died after 175, must
have been alive, or at least a very well-known personality, at the time
of the composition of «Octavius» (cc. 9, 6; 31, 2). A reliable terminus
ad quern is the tractate of Cyprian Quod idola dii non sint, written
perhaps in 248, and in which the work of Minucius is copiously drawn

1 Div. inst., v. i, 22; cf. i. n, 55.

2 De viris illustr., cc. 53, 58; Ep. 70, 5.

72 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

upon. The «Octavius» may have been written at the beginning of the
reign of Commodus (180 — 192). There is no reason for admitting
with de Felice and Schanz, an earlier date, e. g. the reign of An
toninus Pius. On the other hand, Neumann is quite arbitrary when
he brings down the date of composition to the reign of Philippus
Arabs (244 — 249); still more so is Schultze when he attributes it to
the beginning of the fourth century. The use of the work by
Cyprian is sufficient to exclude both of these hypotheses.

For the date of composition cf. A. Ebert, in Abhandlungen der phil.-
hist. Klasse der kgl. sachs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. (1870), v. 319 — 420;
W. Hartely in Zeitschr. fur die osterreich. Gymnasien (1869), xx. 348 — 368;
V. Schultze, in Jahrb. fur prot. Theol. (1881), vii. 485 — 506; P. Schwenke,
ib. (1883), ix. 263—294; F. X. Reck, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1886), Ixviii.
64—114; Fr. Wilhelm, in Breslauer philolog. Abhandlungen (1887), ii. i;
M. L. Massebieau, in Revue de 1'hist. des religions (1887), xv. 316—346;
K. J. Neumann, Der romische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche, Leipzig,
1890, i. 241 if. 250 if. ; M, Schanz y in Rhein. Museum fur Philol., new series
(1895), L. 114 — 136; E. Nor den y in Index lect. Gryphiswald. per sem. aest.
a. 1897 ; H.Boenig, in a programme of the Gymnasium of Konigsberg, 1897.

3. THE TREATISE «DE FATO». Jerome was acquainted with a
work current under the name of Minucius, entitled De fato vel contra
mathematicos. He doubted its authenticity because of the diversity
of style1. It is true that in the «Octavius» Minucius does promise
(c. 36, 2) a work De fato. Possibly his own words caused an
homonymous work of some other writer to be fathered upon him.

THIRD SECTION.

THE HERETICAL LITERATURE OF THE SECOND CENTURY
AND THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA.

§ 25. Gnostic Literature.

I. INTRODUCTION. The apologetic literature was one result of
the conflict between heathenism and Christianity. But even while
the Apostles lived, the Church came in contact with another formi
dable enemy known as heresy. It did not dispute with her the
right to exist, but it threatened the purity and integrity of her apo
stolic faith. It is of importance, therefore, that a brief summary of
the literary labours of heretics should precede an account of the anti-
heretical literature.

The most influential of the primitive heresies was Gnosticism.
It aimed at undermining the entire structure of Christian faith, since,
in spite of the contradictions of its multiform systems, it was based
on the hypothesis of a dual principle and rejected the doctrine of
creation. Nevertheless, it made much headway in the East and West,

1 Ib.

§ 25. GNOSTIC LITERATURE. 73

especially among the cultured classes, and brought forth a literature
of more than ordinary variety and richness. With the exception of
a few works preserved, for the most part, in Coptic, this literature
has perished, and is known to us only from the few fragments that
the ecclesiastical writers inserted in their polemical writings for the
purpose of confuting their heretical opponents.

The principal authorities for the study of Gnosticism and its literature
are the Adversus haereses of Irenaeus , the Philosophy wena of Hippolytus,
the Panarion or Haereses of Epiphanius , and the Liber de haeresibus of
Philastrius. For critical researches on the sources of these and similar
works cf. R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanies, Vienna, 1865;
Die Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte neu untersucht, Leipzig, 1875.
Ad. Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnostizismus, Leipzig,
1873; Zur Quellenkritik der Gesch. des Gnostizismus, in Zeitschr. fur die
histor. Theol. (1874), xliv. 143—226. A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte
des Urchristentums urkundlich dargestellt, Leipzig, 1884; Judentum und
Judenchristentum, Leipzig, 1886. J. Kunze, De historiae gnosticismi fon-
tibus novae quaestiones criticae, Leipzig, 1894. Collections of Gnostic
fragments are found in J E. Grabe, Spicilegium Ss. Patrum ut et haereti-
corum saec. p. Chr. n. i. ii. et iii., Oxford, 1698 — 1699; 2. ed. 1714, 2 voll.,
passim ; in R. Massuet's edition of the Adversus haereses of Irenaeus, Paris,
1710, pp. 349 — 376 (Migne, PG., vii. 1263 — 1322); in A. Stiereris edition
of Irenaeus, Leipzig, 1848 — 1853, i. 899—971; in Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzer
geschichte des Urchristentums, passim. For the most complete index of
Gnostic writers and writings cf. Ad. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur,
i. 143 — 205; ii. i, 289 — 311, 533—541; R. Liechtenhahn, Untersuchungen
zur koptisch-gnostischen Literatur, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol.
(1901), xliv. 236—252; Id., On the apocryphal literature of the Gnostics,
in Zeitschr. fur neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 222—237 ; E. de Faye,
Introduction a 1'etude du gnosticisme au 2e et 3° siecle, in Revue de 1'histoire
des religions (1902), and Paris, 1903.

2. BASILIDES AND ISIDORUS. It would seem that the earliest
chiefs of the Gnostic sects, Dositheus, Simon Magus, Cleobius, Men-
ander, Cerinthus, Nicolaus (?), Satornilus, left no writings, though
at an early date certain works were attributed to them by their
followers. Origen * is aware of pretended « books of Dositheus » ;
Hippolytus2 bases his account of the teachings of Simon Magus on
a supposed « Great revelation » (dmxpaaiq ^sfdtyj current, we may sup
pose, under the name of Simon. Other ecclesiastical writers were of
the same view. Basilides, who taught at Alexandria about 120 — 140,
wrote a Gospel, a Commentary on the same, also Psalms or Canticles
(Odes). His Gospel is often mentioned by name 3, first by Origen,
but not analysed or described. It was probably no more than a com
pilation made for his own purposes from the four Gospels. According
to Agrippa Castor the Commentary of Basilides consisted of twenty-
four books4. Some fragments of it are quoted by Clement of Alexandria,

1 Comm. in Joan. xiii. 27: pift^ouq TOU Aoa&iou. ' Philos., vi. 7 — 20; al.

3 Orig., Horn. I in Lucam. 4 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 7, 7.

FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

Origen, and the author of the Acta Archelai et Manetis. Concerning
the Psalms or Odes we merely know the fact that they once existed 1.
The nature of teachings of Basilides is variously represented by an
cient writers ; the Basilides of Irenseus 2 seems to be a dualist and
an emanationist, while, according to Hippolytus 3, he seems to be an
evolutionist and a pantheist. In order to reconcile these descriptions
of the Basilidian system it is customary to admit two phases of the
same: a primitive form and a later transformation. It still remains
doubtful whether the prior stage of the heresy were that set forth
by Irenaeus or the one described by Hippolytus. Salmon and
Stahelin have recently maintained that, in his account of Basilides,
Hippolytus was deceived, as he was on other occasions (§ 54, 3),
by Gnostic forgeries ; but this hypothesis offers too violent a solution
of the problem. Isidore, degitimate son and disciple» of Basilides 4,
left at least three works. Their titles, according to Clement of
Alexandria , were : On an adherent soul 5 (rcspi TrpocrpuouQ fiufflQ 5
Isidore distinguished between a rational and an « appended » soul);
Ethica (ijfttxd) 6 , perhaps identical with the xapaweTixd that Epi-
phanius attributes to him7, and an Exposition of the prophet Parchor8
(iqr^Ttxa TOO xpoyyTou Ilapywp). Parchor was one of the prophets
invented by Basilides and invoked as authorities. Agrippa Castor
(1. c.) says that he deliberately chose barbarian names for them.

The fragments of the works of Basilides and Isidore are collected in
Grabe (see p. 73, Oxford, 1699), ii. 35 — 43, 64 — 68; Massuet (see p. 73)
pp. 349 ff . , 351 ff . ; Stieren 1. c. , pp. 901 flf . , 907 ff . ; Hilgenfeld 1. c.,
pp. 207 ff . \ 213 ff. They have received special attention from the latter
and from Th. Zahn , Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1888 — 1889),
i. 763 — 774. J. Kennedy, Buddhist Gnosticism. The System of Basilides,
London, 1902. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

3. THE OPHITES OR « GNOSTICS*. The Ophites, or « Brethren of
the Serpent», were the first to take the name of Gnostics (fvcoartxoi).
Even in the second century they had branched out quite extensively.
Some were frankly antinomian in their principles , committed the
gravest excesses, and indulged in abominable orgies, while others
embraced, theoretically at least, Encratite doctrines. The ancient heresio-
logists are unanimous in declaring that several of these sects had them
selves composed, or used and esteemed highly, very many works,
chiefly apocryphal, but current under the name of biblical characters.
St. Irenaeus made use of several such writings for his account of
ancient heresies ; but he mentions the name of only one — the Gospel
of Judas, a book of the Cainites9. Hippolytus is wont to indicate more

1 Fragm. Murat., c. fin. ; Orig. in Job xxi. 1 1 sq.

2 Adv. haer., i. 24, 3 — 7, etc. 3 Philos., vii. 20 — 27; al.

4 Ib., vii. 20. 5 Clem. AL, Strom., ii. 20, 113. 6 Ib., iii. i, 2.

7 Haer., 32, 3. * Clem. Al. 1. c., vi. 6, 53.

9 Adv. haer., i. 31, i.

§ 25. GNOSTIC LITERATURE. 75

particularly the sources of his narrative, and Epiphanius has preserved
the titles of a long series of Ophitic writings. In recent times some
Ophitic works of Encratite tendencies have been discovered in Coptic
translations. The Pistis Sophia, edited in 1851 by Schwartze and
Petermann from a fifth or sixth century Coptic codex (Askewianus)
in the British Museum, is a specimen of such heretical literature. It
relates, in the form of a conversation between the risen Saviour and
his male and female disciples, among whom Mary Magdalen is pro
minent, the fall and the redemption of Pistis Sophia, a being from
the world of the ./Eons. The vicissitudes of her story prefigure the
way of purification for mankind through penance. Numerous psalms
(odes) are scattered through the text; apart from five « Solomonic »
psalms, that are placed on a level with the psalms of David, they
seem to be the work of the author. In its present form the Pistis
Sophia is made up of four books, and was very probably put
together in the second half of the third century, in Egypt. It was
formerly erroneously attributed to Valentine (see p. 76) or to some
later member of his school. At present the first three books are
by many identified with the « Little Questions of Mary» (epwr^ffsn;
Mapiaq fuxpai) that Epiphanius quotes1 as a book of the «Gnostics»;
the fourth book is apparently of an earlier date. A Coptic papyrus-
codex of Oxford (Brucianus), belonging to the fifth or sixth century,
has saved from loss two Ophite works. Their content was made known
in 1891 by Amelineau, and in 1892 by Schmidt. In the larger one
our Lord expounds to his male and female disciple certain cosmogonic
speculations and gives them theologico-practical instructions. In the
smaller one he illustrates the origin and evolution of the world. The
text of both codices, however, is disfigured by gaps and breaks.
According to Schmidt, the larger codex was written among the
Severians 2, about the middle of the third century, and is identical
with the two « Books of Jeu» cited in Pistis Sophia*. The smaller
one appears to be of very remote antiquity, and is held by Schmidt
to be a book of the Sethians or Archontici4 written about the
middle of the second century. His arguments, however, are open to
objections. — A Coptic papyrus of the fifth (?) century, acquired in 1896
for the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, includes three fragments of Gnostic
origin. They are, according to the provisory description of Schmidt:
a « Gospel according to Mary» (sdaffehov xara j\lo.ptdfj., with the sub
title: axoxpixpov 'Icodwou, containing mostly revelations to John); a
« Wisdom of Jesus Christ* (oo<pia "Ir^aolj Xptarou , revelations of our
Lord after His death); and an «Act of Peter» (xpastQ IHrpou, a
miraculous healing of Peter's own daughter). St. Irenaeus seems

1 Haer., 26, 8. 2 Epiph., Haer., 45.

3 Ed. Sch-warlze and Petermann, p. 245 sq., 354.

4 Epiph., 1. c., 39 — 40.

76 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

to have known and used the « Gospel according to Mary», in his
description of the Barbelo-Gnostics 1 ; a clearer knowledge will be pos
sible only when the text is published.

Pistis Sophia. Opus gnostictim Valentino adiudicatum e codice manu-
scripto Coptico Londinensi descripsit et latine vertit M. G. Schwartze. Edidit
y. H. Petermann, Berlin, 1851. K. R. Kostlin, Das gnostische System des
Buches Pistis Sophia, in Theol. Jahrbiicher (1854), xiii. i — 104, 137 — 196.
Ad. Harnack, Uber das gnostische Buch Pistis Sophia, in Texte und Unter-
suchungen (1891), vii. 2, i — 114. Cf. also the writings of Schmidt (mentioned
below) on the Papyrus Brucianus. The edition and translation of this codex
by AnUlineau (Paris, 1891) was not a success; the same may be said of
his Comptes-rendus concerning the contents of the codex. E. Andersson,
Compte-rendu critique: Amelineau: fhVn? 2ocpta, ouvrage gnostique de
Valentin, traduit du copte en franc, ais, in Sphinx, 1904, pp. 237 — 253.

The editio princeps is, we may remark, that of C. Schmidt, Gnostische
Schriften in koptischer Sprache, aus dem codex Brucianus herausgegeben,
iibersetzt nnd bearbeitet (Texte und Untersuchungen, viii. i — 2), Leipzig, 1892.
Cf. Schmidt, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1894), xxxvii. 555 — 585.

For the Berlin papyrus cf. C. Schmidt , Ein vorirenaisches gnostisches
Originalwerk in koptischer Sprache , in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft.
Akad. der Wissensch., Berlin, 1896, pp. 839 — 847.

C. Schmidt, Koptisch-gnostische Schriften: I. Die Pistis Sophia; II. Die
beiden Biicher des Jeu; III. Unbekanntes altgnostisches Werk, Berlin, 1905.
(Griechisch-christliche Schriftsteller.) For an English translation of Pistis
Sophia, made from the German of C. Schmidt 3 see E. R. S. Mead, Frag
ments of a Faith Forgotten, London and Benares, 1900, pp. 459 — 479;
cf. ib. pp. 605 — 630, a full bibliography of works on Gnosticism.

4. CARPOCRATIANS. — The followers of Carpocrates of Alexandria 2
consigned to various works their peculiar «Gnosis» which was closely
related to that of the antinomian group of the Ophites. Clement of
Alexandria furnishes some particulars concerning one of these works 3.
He tells us that about the middle of the second century Epiphanes,
son of Carpocrates, though only seventeen years of age, wrote a work
«On justice» (nept dtxatoavvyq) in which, as is evident from the cita
tions of Clement, he advocated a thorough communism, even of women.

U. Benigni, I socialisti alessandrini del II. secolo, in Bessarione (1896
to 1897), i. 597 — 601.

5. VALENTINE AND VALENTINIANS. -- Valentine is held to be the
most intellectual champion of the hellenizing Gnosis, which followed
in the footsteps of Plato and taught a parallelism between the ideal
world above (ittyp&fjiaj and the lower world of phenomena (xlvw/jta,
botipyfjLa) . The connecting link is the xdrco ao<pia or Achamoth,
a being fallen from the avto aowia , last of the /Eons, into the
visible world. At the moment of his baptism the /Eon Soter (or Jesus)
descended upon the Christ who had been promised and sent by the
Demiurge or World-Creator. Valentine was an Egyptian and had been

1 Adv. haer., i. 29. 2 Ib., i. 25, 4 5. 3 Strom., iii. 2, 5—9.

§ 25. GNOSTIC LITERATURE. JJ

initiated into Greek science at Alexandria. From 135 to 160 (approxima
tely) he sojourned at Rome, and there took place his final apostasy
from the Church. Wounded in his pride at being an unsuccessful can
didate for the papacy, in revenge he took up the role of an arch-
heretic. The date of his death is uncertain. Clement of Alexandria has
preserved some fragments of his Letters and Homilies l. Hippolytus 2
has saved a remnant of the Psalms of Valentine 3. The Sophia
Valentini in Tertullian 4 is not a work of this Gnostic, but rather his
/Eon Sophia. According to Irenaeus, the Valentinians made use of a
« Gospel of Truth », which had nothing in common with the canonical
Gospels5. - - During his life, apparently, the school of Valentine
divided into two branches: known respectively as the Italian or
Western and the Eastern branch. The Italici declared the body of
the Saviour to be of a psychic character, while the Easterns main
tained that is was pneumatic. The principal writers of the Italian
school were Heracleon and Ptolemy, both personal disciples of Valen
tine. Heracleon composed a Commentary on St. John, from which
Origen, in his Commentary on that evangelist, has taken about fifty
citations, partly verbal and partly paraphrased. Two other exegetical
passages of Heracleon are cited by Clement of Alexandria6. As a rule
the exegesis of Heracleon is not only very arbitrary, but also absurd.
Some extracts from Ptolemy are found in Irenaeus 7, including an ex
position of the prologue of the Gospel of John. We owe to Epi-
phanius 8 the preservation of the complete text of a Letter of Ptolemy
to Flora, a Christian lady, in which he undertakes to prove that the
Law of the Old Testament was the work not of the Supreme God,
but of the World-Creator or Demiurge. The Syriac fragment of a
Letter of St. Irenaeus to Pope Victor exhibits a certain Florinus,
at one time a priest of the Roman Church, in the character of a
Christian writer (cf. § 34, 4). The chief literary remains of the
Eastern branch of the Valentinians are the Excerpta ex scriptis
Theodoti : ex TCUV Osodoroo xal TTJQ dvarohxrjQ xaAouuevyQ dtdavxaXiac,
xara robe, O&afavrfoou ypovo'jQ imrofiai. They have come down
under the name of Clement of Alexandria, and are an account of
the teachings of the Oriental Valentinians, together with excerpts
from the writings of an otherwise unknown Theodotus and some
anonymous Valentinians.

The fragments of the writings of Valentine may be seen in Grabe
1. c., ii. 43—58; Massuct 1. c., pp. 352— 355; Stieren 1. c., pp. 909—916;

1 Strom., ii. 8, 36; iv. 13, 896".; al. 2 Philos., vi. 37.

3 Terl., De came Christi, c. 17, 20; al. 4 Adv. Valent., c. 2.

5 Veritatis evangelium, in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evangeliis : Adv. haer..
iii. 1 1, 9.

6 Strom., iv. 9, 70 ff. ; Eclog. proph., c. 25. 7 Adv. haer., i. 1—8, 5.
8 Haer., 33, 5—7.

78 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

Hilgenfeld 1. c., pp. 292 — 307. The fragments of Heracleon are in Grabe,
pp. 80 — 117, 236; Massuct, pp. 362 — 376; Stieren, pp. 936 — 971 ; Hilgenfeld,
pp. 472 — 505; cf. A. E. Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon (Texts and
Studies, i. 4), Cambridge, 1891. On Heracleon see G. Salmon, in Diet, of
Christian Biography, London, 1880, ii. 897 — 900. The Letter of Ptolemy to
Flora is in Grabe, pp. 68—80; Massitet, pp. 357 — 361; Stieren, pp. 922 — 936;
Hilgenfeld, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1881), xxiv. 214 — 230; cf.
Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergesch. des Urchristentums, p. 346, note 580. An
unsuccessful attempt was made by Stieren to disprove the authenticity and
the unity of the Letter of Ptolemy to Flora. A. Stieren, De Ptolemaei Valen-
tiniani ad Floram epistola, Part. I, Jenae, 1843. Cf. Ad. Harnack , Der
Brief des Ptolemaus an die Flora. Eine relig. Kritik am Pentateuch im
2. Jahrhundert, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch.,
Berlin, 1902, pp. 507 — 545. G. Heinrid, Die valentinianische Gnosis und
die Heilige Schrift, Berlin, 1871; Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons,
i. 718 — 763: «Der Schriftgebrauch in der Schule Valentins» ; cf. ii. 953 — 961;
F. Torm, Valentinianismen, historic og laere, Copenhagen, 1901 ; G. Mer-
cati , Note di litteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi, Rome,
1901), v. 88 sq. In this work is cited from a certain Anthimus a passage
of an otherwise unknown work of Valentine (-spl TU>V Tpioiv cpujcwv).

6. BARDESANES AND HARMONIUS. According to Oriental writers
the Syrian Bardesanes (Bar Daisan) was born of noble parents at
Edessa, July ii., 154, proclaimed himself founder of a new religion
1 80 — 190, fled to Armenia in 216 or 217, after the conquest of
Edessa by Caracalla, returned later to his native land and died there
222 — 223. He was originally a Valentinian of the Eastern type,
but soon developed a religious system of his own that is rightly
looked on as a foreshadowing of Manichaeism. Certain hymns of
Ephraem Syrus show that Bardesanes devoted himself particularly
to astrological and cosmogonic speculations *, and that he maintained
against Marcion (see p. 79) the unity of God ; \vhile at the same time
he introduced a plurality of gods. His son Harmonius, according to
Sozomen2, added to the teachings of his father the opinions of
Greek philosophers concerning the soul, the origin and end of the
body, and the second birth. Ephraem Syrus relates 3 that Bardesanes
wrote 150 Psalms and composed the melodies for the same, but
Sozomen (1. c.) says that Harmonius was the parent of Syriac hymno-
logy. Probably the latter collected and edited his father's poetical
works, and added thereto something of his own. It is possible that
some fragments of the Psalms of Bardesanes are yet to be seen in
the poetical remnants of the apocryphal «Acts of Saint Thomas »
(cf. § 30, 8). Polemical and apologetic works of Bardesanes were
known to Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Theodoret4. The polemical
works were dialogues, written against Marcion, and were translated
from Syriac into Greek. The dialogue «On (or Against) Fate» (xep}
or y.a-ca eipapfiivyq) is mentioned by the three Greek writers just

1 Serm. adv. haer., i — 56. 2 Hist, eccl., iii. 16. 3 L. c., sermo 53.

4 Ens., Hist, eccl., iv. 30. Epiph., Haer., 56, i. Theodor., Haeret. fab. comp. i. 22.

§ 25. GNOSTIC LITERATURE. 79

quoted; Eusebius took from it1 two long passages. It is yet ex
tant in Syriac under the title «Book of the Laws of the Countries».
In this work Bardesanes, the chief interlocutor, proves that the
peculiar characters of men are not affected by the position of the
stars at their birth, since various countries have the same laws,
customs, and usages. However, the dialogue does not pretend to be
written by Bardesanes, but by his disciple Philip. In later Oriental
works we meet mention of other books of Bardesanes. Moses of
Chorene2 attributes to him a history of the kings of Armenia. Ibn
Abi Jakub, in his literary history known as «Fihrist», attributes to
Bardesanes a work on light and darkness , another on the spiritual
nature of truth, and a third on the movable and the immovable.

A. Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa, nebst einer Untersuchung liber das
Verhaltnis der clementinischen Rekognitionen zu dem Buche der Gesetze
der Lander, Halle, 1863. A. Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, der letzte Gnostiker,
Leipzig, 1864. Cf. also the articles of F. J. A. ffort, in the Dictionary
of Christ. Biography, i. 250 — 260, of J. M. Schonf elder , in the Kirchen-
lexikon of Wetzer and Welte, 2. ed., i. 1995 — 2002, and of G. Kriiger, in
the Realenzykl. fur prot. Theol. und Kirche, ii. 400 — 403. For the «Book
of the Laws of Countries » (Syriac and English), cf. W. Cureton, Spicilegium
Syriacum, Lond., 1855, pp. i — 21, 21 — 34. There is a German translation
in Merx 1. c., pp. 25 — 55. It has also been translated from Syriac into
French by F. Nau , Bardesanes, astrologue, Le livre des lois des pays,
Paris, 1899.

7. MARCION AND APELLES. Marcion was the son of a bishop of
Sinope in Pontus. About the year 140 he appeared in Rome as a
wealthy navigator. Though he had been excommunicated by his father
for licentious conduct, he managed to secure a reception among the
Christians of that city. A few years later (about 144), he was no
longer in communion with the authorities of the Roman church, and
was bent on founding a church under his own auspices. Owing to
his success in this undertaking, the Pontic skipper affected both his
contemporaries and posterity more profoundly than any heresiarch of
the second century. Beginning with a strict adherence to the Syrian
Gnostic Cerdon, then resident at Rome, he excogitated a doctrinal
system based upon the irreconcilability of justice and grace, the law
and the gospel, Judaism and Christianity. Because of this irrecon
cilable antithesis, two principles must be admitted, both eternal and
uncreated, a good God and a just but wicked God; the latter is
the Creator of this world3. Moreover, not only should we reject
the Old Testament as promulgated by the just and wicked God,
but we must look on the New Testament as corrupted by the
primitive apostles, who interpolated it with their Jewish ideas. Only
Paul, the enemy of Judaism, and his disciple Luke, were faithful
interpreters of the teachings of the Lord. Consequently, Marcion

1 Praep. evang., vi. 10. 2 Hist. Arm., ii. 66. 3 Tert., Adv. Marc., i. 6.

8O FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

gave to his disciples a new Sacred Scripture in two parts: an
stiaffsAioy and an d.noaro)dy.ov. This Marcionite «Evangelium» was
a mutilated and variously disfigured production. The «Apostolicum»
included ten manipulated letters of St. Paul: Galatians, First and Second
Corinthians, Romans, First and Second Thessalonians, Laodiceans =
Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. With the aid of
several opponents of Marcion it is possible to reconstruct in large
measure the original text of this Marcionite Bible1, which enjoyed
canonical authority among the followers of the sect. Ephraem Syrus
is witness to a Syriac version of it; by the time of Tertullian it had
already been frequently « reform ed » 2. To justify his recension of the
Bible, Marcion composed a large work known as Antitheses (dvn-
MOSIQ) in which he arranged, in parallel columns, sentences of the
Old and the New Testament, and from their pretended antilogies con
cluded that the two component parts of the Bible of the Church were
irreconcilable. «Hae sunt», says Tertullian, « antitheses Marcionis, id
est contrariae oppositiones , quae conantur discordiam evangelii cum
lege committere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum instrumenti diversi-
tatem quoque argumententur deorum» 3. According to other state
ments of Tertullian and of Ephraem Syrus the work of Marcion con
tained not only an exposition of the principles of Marcionitic Chris
tianity, but also a more or less detailed commentary on his own
Bible. It seems that Marcion discussed in a Letter the reason of
his abandonment of the Church4. - - Among his disciples Apelles
was prominent as a writer. He turned from the dualism of Marcion
to a certain monism, maintaining that the World-Creator was himself
created by the good God. In his «Syllogisms» fffMo^iff/Jiol) he
undertook to prove that in the books of Moses there was nothing
but lies; hence they could not have God as their author. It was
an extensive work, as may be imagined from the fact that the
criticism of the biblical account of the fall of the first man was
found in its thirty-eighth book5. In his « Manifestations » (tpavs--
POMJ&Q) Apelles described the pretended revelations of Philumena, a
Roman female visionary6. The « Gospel of Apelles» first mentioned
by Jerome 7 was probably nothing more than a later elaboration or
a new recension of the Gospel of Marcion.

A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, Leipzig, 1884,
pp. 316 — 341: «Cerdon und Marcion »; pp. 522 — 543: «Marcion und Ap-
pelles». A. Harnack, De Appellis gnosi monarchica, Leipzig, 1874. H. U.
Meyboom, Marcion en de Marcionieten, Leyden, 1888. For earlier tenta-

1 Especially Tert., 1. c., v. Epiph., Haer., 42, and the author of Dialog. Adamantii
de recta in Deum fide.

2 Tert., 1. c., iv. 5; cf. De praescr. haeret., c. 42. 3 Adv. Marc., i. 19.

4 Tert., 1. c., i. I ; iv. 4 ; De came Christi, c. 2. 5 Ambros., De parad., v. 28.

6 Tert., De praescr. haeret., c. 30 ; De carne Christi, c. 6 ; al.

7 Comm. in Matth., prol.

§ 26. THE JUDAISTIC LITERATURE. 8 1

tive reconstructions of the Gospel of Marcion cf. A.Hahn, 1823 and 1832;
Hilgenfeld, 1850; G. Volckmar, 1852; also the work of W. C. van Manen
(1887) on the reconstruction of Galatians according to Marcion. All such efforts
are more or less antiquated since the work of Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl.
Kanons, ii. 409 — 529, «Marcions Neues Testament» (an essay in text-
reconstruction); cf. ib. , i. 587 — 718, a criticism of the Bible of Marcion.
A. Hahn, Antitheses Marcionis gnostici, liber deperditus, nunc quoad eius fieri
potuit restitutus, Konigsberg, 1823. A. Harnack, Sieben neue Bruchstiicke
der Syllogismen des Apelles (from Ambros., De parad., vi. 30—32; vii. 35;
viii. 38, 40, 41), in Texte und Untersuchungen (1890), vi. 3, in — 120; cf.
Harnack, ib., xx.; new series (1900), v. 3, 93 — 100. F. J. J. Jackson,
Christian Difficulties in the Second and Twentieth Centuries. Study of
Marcion and his relation to modern thought, London, 1903. See G. Salmon,
Marcion, in Diet, of Christian Biography, London, 1880, iii. 817 — 824.

8. THE ENCRATITES. These heretics rejected as sinful both ma
trimony and the use of meat and wine. The chief spokesmen of their
doctrines in the second century were Tatian (§ 18) and Julius Cas-
sianus. About the year 170 the latter published at least two works:
one entitled Ifyrynxd in several books1, and the other «On con
tinence or celibacy» (x£pi lyxparzcaQ rj its pi ZLtvo'jyiaq) 2.

Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergesch. des Urchristentums, pp. 546 — 549. Zahn,
Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 632 — 636, 750.

§ 26. The Judaistic Literature.

1. THE EBIONITES. The heretical group known as Ebionites saw
in Jesus a son of Joseph, and denied His birth of the Blessed
Virgin and the Holy Ghost3. Several of their authoritative books
are mentioned by Epiphanius4, among others «the so-called Journeys
of Peter » (see below) and the Gospel of the Ebionites (§ 29, 3).
Toward the end of the second century the Ebionite Symmachus,
known also for his translation of the Old Testament into Greek,
wrote an exegetical work in which he attacked the Gospel of
St. Matthew 5. It is supposed that this work is identical with that
known to the Syrian writer Ebed Jesu (f 1318) as Liber Symmachi
de distinctione praeceptorum.

G. Mercati, L' eta di Simmaco 1' interprete e S. Epifanio, Modena, 1892.

2. THE ELKESAITES. These heretics, known also as Sampsaei,
professed an odd mixture of Judaism, Christianity and Heathenism.
Epiphanius tells us 6 that they possessed two symbolic books, one
under the name of Elxai, founder of the sect, and another under
the name of his brother Jexai. Both Epiphanius7 and Hippolytus8
quote several passages from the Book of Elxai. The date of its

1 Clem. Al., Strom., i. 21, 101 ; cf. Hier., Comm. in Gal. ad vi. 1 8.

2 Clem. Al., Strom., iii. 13, 91—92.

3 Iren., Adv. haer., iii. 21, I ; v. I, 3. 4 Haer. 30.

5 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 17; cf. Hier., De viris illustr., c. 54.

6 Haer. 53, i. 7 Haer. 19, I ff . ; 53, i. 8 Philos., ix. 13 — 17.
BARDKNHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 6

82 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

composition would be about the year 100, according to Hilgen-
feld ; others locate it, more accurately, about the year 200.

The fragments of the Book of Elxai are collected in Hilgenfeld, Novum
Testamentum extra canonem rec., 2. ed., Leipzig, 1881, fasc. iii. 227 — 240;
cf. Id., Judentum und Judenchristentum, Leipzig, 1886, pp. 103 ff.

3. THE SO-CALLED CLEMENTINES (CLEMENTINE LITERATURE).
Under this title (KtyfiivTia) are usually collected certain writings
that treat of the life of St. Clement of Rome, and pretend to have
been written by him. They are the Recognitions of Clement, the
Homilies, and two Letters. The ten books of the Recognitions are
no longer extant in the original Greek, but only in a Latin version
made by Rufinus of Aquileia, and in a Syriac revision. According
to the Latin version Clement was much troubled in his youth by
doubts concerning the immortality of the soul, the origin of the
world, and similar matters. Hearing that the Son of God had
appeared in Judaea he made a journey to the East, where he met
the Apostle Peter, from whom he received the desired enlightenment.
Thereupon he became his disciple and accompanied him on his
journeys. At Caesarea he was witness to the dispute of St. Peter
with Simon Magus (Recog. ii. 20 — iii. 48). Somewhat later, Cle
ment made known to the Apostle the circumstances of his early life.
When he was five years of age, his mother, Matthidia, a relative of
the Emperor, had fled from Rome as the result of a dream, taking
with her his two elder brothers, the twins Faustinus and Faustus.
They were sought for in vain ; indeed, his father Faustinianus never
returned from the toilsome and fruitless journey he undertook in search
of wife and children (vii. 8— 10). But the long separated family was
now to be re-united. During an excursion from Antharadus to the
island of Aradus, St. Peter discovered in a beggar woman the mother
of his disciple. Two other disciples and companions of the Apostle
made themselves known as Faustinus and Faustus, the brothers of
Clement. Finally the father Faustinianus was discovered by St. Peter.
It is to this happy ending of the story that the work owes its
peculiar title: Recognitiones = dvcrfvcoaeu;, dvafvwptffjuol. It was also
known to antiquity by other titles, among them Uspiodot Uirpou or
A/^ucvrtfC, Itinerarium, Historia, Gesta Clementis. The chief scope
of the work, however, was not the story of the vicissitudes of
St. Clement, but rather the recommendation of certain teachings of
St. Peter that are interwoven with the narrative. The book is really
a religious romance. In the Latin version the didactic exposition of
the original is reproduced in a very incomplete way. In a preliminary
remark Rufinus says that there were current two recensions of the
Greek text (in graeco eiusdem operis dvaYvwaecov, hoc est recogni-
tionum, duas editiones haberi), and that in both were found theological

§ 26. THE JUDAISTIC LITERATURE. 83

discussions (quaedam de ingenito Deo genitoque disserta et de aliis
nonnullis), that he had thought it proper to omit. By a second
recension of the workRufinus doubtless means the Homilies (bfiiXiat), the
Greek text of which we possess. They are twenty in number, and are
prefaced by two Letters of Peter and Clement, respectively, to James
of Jerusalem. In the first letter Peter requests James to keep rigorously
secret the discourses he has sent him (T&V IIJLOJV xypufjutdTcoV ac,
HnefA<l>d GOI JcfiAovQ, c. ij. In the second Clement informs James that
he had received episcopal consecration from Peter a little before the
latter's death. He had also been instructed to send to James a
lengthy report concerning his past life; he performs this duty by
sending him an extract of the discourses that Peter had already sent
to James. The work pretends therefore to have been sent to James
under the title of « Clement's Epitome of the Sermons made by Peter
during his journeys» (K^/JLSVTOQ rcov Ilirpoo iittdrjfiiwv xrjpi>YfJ.drwv
entropy, c. 20), a title that recalls at once the pretended «Journeys
of Peter written by Clement » (rale, neptodotg xaXoufiivatg IHrpoi> rale,
dta KATJ/JLSVTOG rpavsicraicj, which Epiphanius (Haer. 30, 15) tells us
was an Ebionite work. The story of Clement, as told in the Ho
milies, is again a cover for the doctrinal teaching of Peter. With
the exception of a few insignificant details (Horn. xii. 8) the story
tallies in all essentials with that related in the Recognitions. The
doctrinal ideas exhibit close conformity with those of the Elkesaites.
The heathen elements of the Elkesaite teaching are no longer ap
parent, but the essential identity of Christianity and Judaism is very
energetically maintained. It is the same prophet who revealed himself
in Adam,, Moses and Jesus. As it fell to Moses to restore the primitive
religion when obscured and disfigured by sin, so the new revelation
in Jesus had become necessary by reason of the gradual darkening
and alteration of the original Mosaic revelation (Horn. ii. 38 ff.).
Finally, the two Epitomes or Compendia omit the theological dis
cussions, recapitulate the narrative of the Homilies, and relate the
doings of St. Clement at Rome, together with his martyrdom. While
both Recognitions and Homilies certainly antedate the Epitomes, the
question of priority raised by the similarity of the subject matter
of the Recognitions and the Homilies is not an easy one. It has
been answered in so many contradictory ways, that there is an
urgent need for a new examination of the problem. Hilgenfeld
believes that the Recognitions are the earlier work, of which the
Homilies offer us an enlargement. Uhlhorn maintains the priority of
the Homilies, and Lehmann finds in the Recognitions two distinct
sections, the first of which (Book I — III) is older than the Homilies,
while the second (Book IV — X) is posterior to them. Langen
places the composition of the Homilies at Caesarea toward the end
of the second century, that of the Recognitions at Antioch about

84 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

the beginning of the third century. Both works, however, he declares,
are merely revisions, or rather polemical refutations of a still earlier
work, written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, with the purpose
of establishing at Rome the supreme ecclesiastical primacy. While it
is likely enough that older writings have been embodied in the
Clementines, as we now read them, the hypothesis of a primitive
work of this character and tendency is both arbitrary and untenable.
On the other hand, it is probably true that, in their traditional shape,
the Clementines exhibit a Judaizing tendency, in so far as they desire
to see the primacy transferred from Peter (and Clement) to James,
from Rome to Jerusalem (or Caesarea and Antioch).

The first printed edition of the Recognitions from the Latin version of
Rufinus was published by J. Faber Stapulensis (Lefevre d'Estaples), Paris, 1504.
An improved text was published by Cotelerius, Patres aevi apostolici, i.,
Paris, 1672. For other editions cf. Schoenemann , Bibl. hist.-litt. Patrum
lat., i. 633 ff. The most recent is that of£. G. Gersdorf, Leipzig, 1838 (Bibl.
Patr. eccles. lat. sel., i; Migne, PG., i). dementis Romani Recognitiones
syriace P. A. de Lagarde edidit, Leipzig and London, 1861.

The Homilies were first edited by Cotelier (1. c.), but this edition did
not go beyond the middle of the nineteenth Homily, where the manuscript
ended from which the text was taken. Similarly the edition of A. Schwegler,
Stuttgart, 1847. The complete text is reproduced in Migne (PG., ii), from
the edition of A. R. M. Dressel, dementis Romani quae feruntur homiliae
viginti mine primum integrae, Gottingen, 1853. P. de Lagarde was the
first to publish (the Greek text without translation) an edition answering in
all essentials to modern requirements : Clementina, edited by P. de Lagarde,
Leipzig, 1865; the introduction (pp. 3 — 28) was reprinted by him in his
Mitteilungen, Gottingen, 1884, pp. 26 — 54. A remark of Lagarde's is worth
quoting: «I think we shall not make any substantial progress without a
proper and continuous commentary on the Clementine Recognitions and
Homilies» (Clementina, p. n). Rufinus' version of the Letter of Clement to
James, which even in the time of Rufinus was prefixed to the Recognitions,
was edited anew by 0. F. Fritzsche, Epistola dementis ad Jacobum (progr.),
Zurich, 1873. Dressel published both Epitomes: Clementinorum Epitome
duae, Leipzig, 1859. A. Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Rekognitionen und
Homilien, Jena, 1848. G. Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Rekognitionen des
Clemens Romanus, Gottingen, 1854. J. Lehmann, Die clementinischen
Schriften, Gotha, 1869. G. Frommberger, De Simone Mago. Pars prima:
De origine Pseudo-Clementinoruni (Dissert, inaug.), Breslau, 1886. H. M.
Tan Nes, Het Nieuxve Testament in de Clementinen (Dissert, inaug.), Amster
dam, 1887. y. Langen, Die Clemensromane, Gotha, 1890. Cf. A. Brilll
in Theol. Quartalschr. (1891), Ixxiii. 577 — 601 ; C. Bigg, The Clementine
Homilies, in Studia biblica et ecclesiastica, Oxford, 1890, ii. 157 — 193;
F. Hort, Notes introductory to the study of the Clementine Recognitions,
London, 1901 ; J. Chapman, Origen and the Date of Pseudo-Clemens, in
Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 436—441 ; J. Franko, Beitrage aus
dem Kirchenslavischen zu den Apokryphen des Neuen Testaments. I: Zu
den Pseudo-Clementinen , in Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch.
(1902), iii. 146—155. For another and a later Clementine apocryphal
writing cf. G. Mercati, Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi
e Testi, v), Rome, 1901, 80 — 81, 238 — 241. J. Bergmann, Les elements juifs
dans les pseudo-Clementines, in Revue des etudes juives, 1903, pp. 59 — 98.

§ 27. THE MONTANIST LITERATURE. § 28. THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA. 85

H. U. Meyboom , De Clemens-Roman. Part I: Synoptische Vertaling van
den Tekst, Groningen, 1902. Part II, Groningen, 1904. A. Hilgenfeld, Ori-
genes und Pseudo-Clemens, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1903), xlvi.
342 — 351. Chapman (1. c., p. 441) places the Clementines in early part of the
fourth century; cf. Kellner, in Theol. Revue (1903), ii. 421— 422. H, Waitz,
Die Pseudo-Clementinen, Homilien und Rekognitionen. Eine quellenkritische
Untersuchung (Texte und Untersuchungen [Leipzig 1904], x. 4). A. Hilgen-
feld, Pseudo- Clemens in moderner Fac,on, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl.
Theol., 1904, pp. 545 — 567. A. C. Headlam, The Clementine Literature, in
Journal of Theol. Studies (1901), iii. 41 — 58. F. H. Chase, The Clementine
Literature, in Hastings' Diet, of the Bible (1900), art. «Peter», p. 775.

§ 27. The Montanist Literature.

Montanism arose in Phrygia and called itself « the new prophecy »,
the completion of the revelation made by God to man. In their
ecstatic exaltation or delirium Montanus and his female companions,
Priscilla (Prisca) and Maximilla, pretended to be the organs of the
Paraclete ; they were to be its voice, not so much for the communi
cation of new truths of faith as for new and higher demands upon
Christian life. Certain collections of oracles of the prophetic tri-
folium -- « countless books », says Hippolytus 1 - - were held by the
Montanists as equal in authority to the books of biblical revelation.
They were held to be «new Scriptures », says the Roman priest
Gains 2. They had also for use in their meetings new spiritual
chants or Psalms 3. The work of the Montanist writer Asterius Ur-
banus, cited4 by an anonymous Antimontanist in 192 — 193, was
probably a collection of oracular replies. The Antimontanist work
of the apologist Miltiades (§ 19, i) gave his opponents an occasion
to reply5. Themison, prominent among the Montanists of Phrygia,
«imitated the Apostle and wrote a Catholic Letter, i. e. addressed to
all Christians » 6. Early in the third century a certain Proclus wrote in
defence of Montanism at Rome 7. The most brilliant convert to the
«new prophecy » was Tertullian of Carthage (§ 50).

G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Geschichte des Montanismus, Erlangen, 1881.
A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums , Leipzig, 1884,
pp. 560—601 : «Die Kataphryger». Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch.
des neutestamentl. Kanons und der altkirchl. Literatur, Erlangen and Leipzig,
l893; v- 3 — 57 : «Die Chronologic des Montanismus*.

§ 28. The New Testament Apocrypha.

I. GENERAL NOTIONS. The term, New Testament Apocrypha,
is given to a widely ramified class of writings that imitate those

1 Philos., viii. 19. 2 Apud Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 20, 3.

3 Tert., Adv. Marc., v. 8; De anima, c. 9.

4 Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 16, 17. 5 Ih., v. 17, i.

6 Apollonius apud Eus., \. c., v. 18, 5.

7 Gaius apud Eus., \. c., iii. 31, 4.

86 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

of the New Testament. The subject-matter is the same, and usually
these works are attributed to the authors of the New Testament.
In view of their form and plan they may be divided like the canon
ical Scriptures into Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Letters of the
Apostles, and Apocalypses. In origin and tendency they are partly
works of heretical and partisan authors, and partly works of edi
fication written with good intentions. Indeed, the silence of the New
Testament concerning the youth of our Lord, the life of His Mother,
and the later history of the Apostles, seemed especially destined to
excite pious imaginations ; in this way sprang up about the trunk of
the historico-canonical Scriptures a wild and luxurious vegetation of
legends. But the majority of the Apocrypha, especially the Gospels
and Acts of the Apostles, were written for the purpose of propagating
the doctrines of some particular heresy. Among the Gnostics especially
this kind of literature spread with almost unearthly rapidity. All
those Apocrypha that affect more or less an historical form are
characterized especially, from a literary point of view, by a certain
weirdness, extravagance and absurdity. It has been often and rightly
remarked that the relations of the apocryphal historiography to
the historical books of the New Testament are such as to bring
out very clearly the purity and truth of the canonical narratives.
Withal, the apocryphal legends and romances have played a pro
minent role in history. Their subject-matter was very attractive;
hence in many lands they furnished the material for pious reading
or conversation, and were in a way the spiritual nourishment of the
people. Not only did harmless legends meet with acceptance and
approval, but several distinctly heretical works, revised and stripped
of their errors, continued to affect Christian thought long after the
disappearance of their original circle of readers.

The most important of the older collections of New Testament Apo
crypha is that of the well-known literary historian y. A. Fabridus , Codex
apocryphus Novi Testament!, 2 voll., Hamburg, 1703—1719. The first
volume was reprinted in 1719, the second in 1743. J. C. Thilo planned
as his life-work a complete critical collection ; apart from separate editions
of several apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, he prepared only the first
volume of his projected work ; it offers an entirely new, and in every way
admirable, recension of many apocryphal Gospels : Codex apocryphus Novi
Testament!, Leipzig, 1832, i. A work of much less value is the edition
brought out by W. Giles , containing chiefly apocryphal Gospels : Codex
apocryphus Novi Testament!, 2 voll., London, 1853. Since then there
have appeared only collective editions of specific groups of New Testament
Apocrypha, Gospels, Acts, etc. (cf. pp. 87 ff.). H. Hilgenfeld , Novum
Testamentum extra canonem receptum, fasc. iv, Leipzig, 1866, 2. ed., 1884.
M. Rh. James, Apocrypha anecdota, Cambridge, 1893 (Texts and Studies,
ii. 3). Id., Apocrypha anecdota, 2. series, Cambridge, 1897 (Texts and
Studies, v. i). P. Lacan , Fragments d'Apocryphes coptes de la Biblio-
theque Nationale, publics dans les Memoires de la Mission franchise
d'archeologie orientale, Le Caire, 1904.

§ 28. THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA. 8 7

The editions of the Syriac Apocrypha of the New Testament are in
dicated by E. Nestle, in his Syrische Grammatik , 2. ed., Berlin, 1888,
Litteratura, 27 ff . ; cf. Nestle, in Realencykl. fiir prot. Theol. und Kirche,
Leipzig, 3. ed., 1897, iii. 168. R. Duval, La litterature syriaque, Paris, 1899
(Biblioth. de 1'enseignement de 1'histoire ecclesiastique. Anciennes littera-
tures chretiennes, ii.), pp. 95 — 120, with corrections and additions, Paris,
1900, pp. 20 — 21. For the Apocrypha in Old-Slavonic cf. N. Bonwetsch
apud Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 902 — 917. For the Coptic
Apocrypha cf. C. Schmidt apud Harnack 1. c., i. 919 — 924. R. Basset, Les
Apocryphes ethiopiens traduits en franc, ais, Paris, 1893 ff. Cf. James, Apo
crypha anecd., 2. series, pp. 166 ff. Recent collections of versions: K. Fr.
Borberg, Bibliothek der neutestamentl. Apokryphen, Stuttgart, 1841, vol. i.
(the only volume printed). Migne, Dicdonnaire des Apocryphes, 2 voll., Paris,
1856—1858. -- Movers (Kaulen) , Apokryphen und Apokryphenliteratur,
in Kirchenlexikon of Wetzer and Welte, 2. ed., Freiburg, 1882, i. 1036 to
1084, a profoundly erudite study. R. Hofmann, Apokryphen des Neuen
Testamentes, in Realencykl. fur prot. Theol. und Kirche, Leipzig, 3. ed., 1896,
i. 653 — 670. H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einleitung in das
Neue Testament, 2. ed., Freiburg, 1886, pp. 534 — 554: «Die neutestament-
lichen Apokryphen ». E. Preuschen, Die Reste der aufterkanonischen Evan-
gelien und urchristlichen Uberlieferungen, Gieften, 1901. B. Pick, The
Extra-Canonical Life of Christ, New York, 1903. James de Quincy Donehoo,
The Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, New York, 1903. E. H.
Chase, Encyclopedia Biblica.

2. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. By far the greater part of the Apo
cryphal Gospels that have been preserved, or are in any way known
to us, were written in the first three centuries by Gnostics, with the
purpose of lending an apostolic sanction to their doctrines. Not a
few of these works enjoyed in particular Gnostic sects or group of
sects an authority identical with or similar to that of the canonical
Gospels in the Catholic Church. We have mentioned the Diatessaron
ofTatian (§ 18, 3), the Gospel of Basilides (§ 25, 2), the Valentinian
Gospel of the Truth (§ 25, 5), the Gospel of Marcion and Apelles
(§ 25, 7) etc., and shall have occasion to mention others. If we
look at the structure and content of the apocryphal gospels we see
that some are based on the canonical books whose material they
develop under the influence of their own doctrines; others invent their
stories quite freely. The latter treat of the youth of our Lord or of
His actions after the Resurrection. As early as the time of St. Irenaeus,
the Gnostics were wont to lament the silence of the Gospels about
the life of Jesus Christ before His Baptism and after His Resurrection ;
they also relate that, after the latter, He spent eighteen months on
earth in order to initiate more profoundly some privileged disciples
in the mysteries of His teaching *. The Gospel according to the
Hebrews, and the Ebionite Gospel, belong to other heretical or
sectarian communities; the Protevangelium Jacobi is the product of
ecclesiastical circles.

1 Adv. haer., i. 30, 14; cf. i. 3, 2.

88 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

Evangelia apocrypha, edidit C. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1853, 2. ed.,
1876. F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, Cambridge, 1896 (Texts
and Studies, iv. 2). M. N. Speranskij , The Slavonic Apocryphal Gos
pels (Russian), Moscow, 1895. E. Preuschen , Antilegomena. Die Reste
der aufterkanonischen Evangelien und urchristlichen Uberlieferungen,
Gieften, 1901.

R. Clemens, Die geheim gehaltenen oder sog. apokryphischen Evange
lien, ins Deutsche iibertragen, Stuttgart, 1852. B. H. Cowper, The Apo
cryphal Gospels and other Documents relating to the history of Christ,
translated from the originals, 6. ed., London, 1897. C. Tischendorf, De
evangeliorum apocryphorum origine et usu, The Hague, 1891. R. A. Lipsius,
Apocryphal Gospels, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr. (London, 1880), ii. 700 — 717.
A. Tappchorn, Aufierbiblische Nachrichten oder die Apokryphen liber die
Geburt, Kindheit und das Lebensende Jesu und Maria, Paderborn, 1885.
Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892,
ii. 621 — 797: «Uber apokryphe Evangelien». J. G. Tasker, (art.) «Apo-
cryphal Gospels» in Hastings' Diet, of the Bible (extra vol.), 1904, pp. 420
to 438. Battifol, (art.) «Evangiles Apocryphes» in Vigour oux, Diet, de la
Bible. Tome II, col. 2114 — 2118.

3. APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. The ancient traditions
concerning the lives and deaths of the Apostles were soon enriched,
for many reasons, with an abundance of fabulous tales ; according
as this narrative-material was committed to writing, there took place
a still stronger colouring of these stories. The Apocryphal Acts of
the Apostles are in reality religious romances. Some of them seek
merely to satisfy a pious curiosity. Most of them, however, under
the cover of marvellous and pleasure-giving tales, tend to create an
opening for heretical doctrines that are artfully insinuated in them.
In his commentary on the apocryphal Third Letter to the Corinthians,
Ephraem Syrus reproaches the followers of Bardesanes with having
changed the missionaries of the Lord into preachers of the impiety
of Bardesanes. Later, especially since the beginning of the fifth
century, a certain Leucius, or, as Photius writes it 1, Leucius Charinus,
is very often mentioned as the writer of heretical Acts of the Apostles,
especially of Acts of St. John. The earliest traces of this very
dubious personality are found in Epiphanius 2 and Pacianus 3. It is
probable that in the introduction to the Acts of John, which have
reached us only in a very fragmentary state, the author made himself
known as Leucius, a disciple of the Apostle. Probably the same
hand wrote the equally Gnostic Acts of Peter and perhaps the no
less Gnostic Acts of Andrew. Many Gnostic Acts were « worked
over» at a later date by Catholics, in such a way as to retain, with
more or less consistency, the tales about the journeys and miracles
of the Apostles, while the heretical discourses and teachings were
cut out. The original Gnostic texts have generally perished, while
the Catholic revisions of the same have been preserved, at least

1 Bibl. Cod. 114. 2 Haer. 51, 6.

3 Ep. i. ad Sympr., c. 2.

§ 28. THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA. 89

in fragments. Of the Acts of the Apostles written originally by
Catholics only a few remnants have reached our time.

Foremost and epoch-making among the works on the Apocryphal Acts
of the Apostles is that by R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten
und Apostellegenden, 2 voll., Braunschweig 1883 — 1890, with a supplemen
tary fascicule. Acta Apostolorum apocrypha, edidit C. Tischendorf, Leipzig,
1851. Cf. Additamenta ad Acta Apostolorum apocrypha in Tischendorf,
Apocalypses apocryphae, Leipzig, 1886, xlvii — 1. 137 — 167. Acta Aposto
lorum apocrypha, post C. Tischendorf denuo ediderunt R. A. Lipsius et
M. Bonnet. Pars prior, Leipzig, 1891. Partis alterius vol. i., 1898. Supple-
mentum codicis apocryphi i: Acta Thomae. Edidit M. Bonnet, Leipzig,
1883. Suppl. cod. apocr. ii: Acta Andreae. Ed. M. Bonnet, Paris, 1895.

For similar apocryphal material in Syriac, cf. W. Wright, Apocryphal
Acts of the Apostles, 2 voll., London, 1871. /. Guidi has edited (Rendi-
conti della Regia Accademia dei Lincei, 1887 — 1888) and translated into
Italian (Giornale della Societa Asiatica Italiana [1888], ii. r — 66) some
Coptic fragments of Acts of the Apostles. Other fragments were published
in 1890 by O. von Lemm. For further detail cf. Lipsius, Die apokryphen
Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, Supplement, pp. 98 ff., 259 if.
Id., Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr., London,
1880, i. 17 — 32. S. C. Malan translated into English (1871) an Ethiopic
collection (from the Coptic through the Arabic) of Acts of the Apostles,
under the title « Conflicts of the Apostles». E. A. W. Budge began the
publication of the Ethiopic text with an English translation, vol. i, London,
1899, vol. ii (the last), 1901. A. v. Gutschmid , Die Konigsnamen in den
apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (Rhein. Museum fur Philol. , new series
[1864], xix. 161 — 183, 380 — 401, reprinted inKleine Schriften vonA. v. Gut
schmid, herausgeg. von Fr. Riihl, Leipzig, 1890, ii. 332 — 394. Zahn, Gesch.
des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), ii. 2, 797 — 910: «Uber apokryphe Apo-
kalypsen und Apostelgeschichten ». Duchesne , Les anciens recueils des
legendes apostoliques (Compte rendu du III. Congres scientifique internat.
des Catholiques, section v (Bruxelles, 1895), pp. 67 — 79.

4. APOCRYPHAL LETTERS OF THE APOSTLES. In comparison with
the long series of Apocryphal Gospels and Acts, there are but few
similar documents in the shape of special Letters, unconnected with
larger works. During the first three or four centuries we come across
only a few Letters or Collections of Letters current under the name
of St. Paul. The apocryphal third Letter to the Corinthians, ori
ginally a part of the apocryphal Acta Pauli, enjoyed for a time
canonical authority in the churches of Syria and Armenia.

There is no special edition of all the Apocryphal Letters of the Apostles.
Cf. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 565 — 621: «Unechte
Paulusbriefe».

5. APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES. An Apocalypse of Peter has reached
us in fragments. It belongs to the first half of the second century;
all other apocryphal Apocalypses bearing New Testament names are
of a later date.

Apocalypses apocryphae. Maximam partem nunc primum edidit C.
Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1866. Zahn, 1. c., ii. 2, 797 — 910: «Uber apokryphe
Apokalypsen und Apostelgeschichten*. R. A. Lipsius, Apocryphal Apo
calypses, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr., London, 1880, i. 130 — 132.

9<3 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

§ 29. Apocryphal Gospels.

1. A PAPYRUS-FRAGMENT. A small fragment of a third-century
papyrus-codex discovered at Fayum in Middle Egypt treats of certain
prophecies of the Lord concerning the scandal of his disciples and
the denial of Peter. It offers a parallel to Mt. xxvi. 30 — 34 and
Mk. xiv. 26 — 30. Bickell and others look on it as one of those lost
evangelical narratives of which Luke speaks in the prologue of his
Gospel. It is possible, however, that it is merely a loose quotation
from Matthew or Mark, and has drifted down as a relic from some
homily or other writing.

The fragment has been several times edited and commented on by
G. Bickell, first in Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol. (1885), ix. 498 — 504, and finally
in Mitteihmgen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (1892),
v. 78 — 82. Cf. Ad. Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen (1889), v. 4,
481 — 497. He thinks it a Gospel-fragment. Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neu-
testamentl. Kanons, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892, ii. 2, 780 — 790: in his
opinion it is a loose quotation from the Gospels. P. Sam, in Revue Biblique
(1892), i. 321—344, and in Litterattira cristiana antica, Studi critici del
P. Paolo Savi barnabita, raccolti e riordinati dal can. Fr. Polese , Siena,
1899, pp. 123 — 145, thought that it looked more like a fragment of a
Gospel than a loose quotation from one.

2. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS. Since Lessing
(f 1781) there is frequent mention in modern Gospel -criticism of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews (TO #«#' ^Eftpalooc, edaffshov,
Evangelium secundum sen juxta Hebraeos). It is known to us only
through stray references in ancient ecclesiastical writers such as
St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Epiphanius,
St. Jerome, and others. A decisive authority attaches to the statements
of St. Jerome. To the evidence of earlier writers that the Gospel
according to the Hebrews had been written in Hebrew, he added
the specific information: «chaldaico quidem syroque sermone, sed
hebraicis litteris scriptum est», i. e. it was composed in Aramaic,
but transliterated in Hebrew *. About 390 Jerome translated it 2 from
Aramaic into Greek and Latin; both versions together with the
original have fallen a prey to the ravages of time. Perhaps the
quotations in Clement of Alexandria and Origen are proof that long
before St. Jerome there existed a Greek version of this Gospel. As to
its contents, we may gather from St. Jerome and the other witnesses
that it was closely related to the canonical Gospel of Matthew,
though not identical with it. They were alike in their general dis
position and in many more or less characteristic details; the dif
ferences consisted in numerous minor additions which in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews amplified and completed the subject-matter
of Matthew. Apart from the original language of the former, it

1 Dial. adv. Pelag., iii. 2. 2 De viris illustr., c. 2.

§ 29. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 9!

was the unanimous opinion of the entire ancient Church that the
Gospel of Matthew had been composed in Aramaic. Hence it is
not easy to avoid the hypothesis that the Gospel according to the
Hebrews was merely a revision and enlargement of the Gospel of
Matthew. It cannot have been composed later than about the middle
of the second century, since Hegesippus knew it and made use of
it *. The Aramaic-speaking Judaeo-Christians of Palestine and Syria
were known as «Hebrews». Jerome always uses the term «Nazaraei»
for those who read and venerate the Gospel according to the Hebrews ;
on one occasion he calls them Nazaraeans and Ebionites 2 ; Epiphanius
distinguishes 3 the Nazaraeans , generally orthodox, from the clearly
heterodox Ebionites. The title TO xatf lEf)paioo£ &jo.f~(ihov was
evidently fashioned after the formula sdaffehov xara Marftatov; it
very probably meant no more than the exclusive use of that Gospel
in Hebrew circles.

E. B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, London, 1879.
Hilgenfeld , Nov. Test, extra can. rec., fasc. iv (2. ed. , Leipzig, 1884),
5 — 31; cf. Id., in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1884), xxvii. 188 — 194;
(1889), xxxii. 280 — 302. E. Preuschen, Antilegomena, Gieften, 1901, pp. 3 — 8;
D. Gla, Die Originalsprache des Matthausevangeliums, Paderborn and Miinster,
1887, pp. 101 — 121 • R. Handmann, Das Hebraerevangelium (Texte und
Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1888, v. 3); Th. Za/m, Gesch. des neutestamentl.
Kanons, ii. 2, 642 — 723 (an excellent investigation); Harnack, Gesch. der
altchristl. Literatur, ii. i, 631 — 651.

3. THE GOSPEL OF THE TWELVE AND THE GOSPEL OF THE
EBIONITES. Under the name of « Gospel of the Twelve » (which
we meet first in Origen)4, as translated by St. Jerome: «Evangelium
iuxta duodecim Apostolos», we are not to understand the Gospel
according to the Hebrews5, but rather the Gospel of the Ebionites,
i. e. of those Judaeo-Christians who held Jesus for no more than the
son of Joseph. This Gospel has also perished ; according to St. Epi
phanius 6 it was a compilation made for their purpose from the
canonical Gospels. The twelve Apostles seem to have been intro
duced in the role of narrators7. It certainly was written in Greek,
probably about 150 — 200.

Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, extra can. rec., fasc. iv, 2. ed., Leipzig, 1884,
pp. 32 — 38. Preuschen, Antilegomena, pp. 9 — n. Zahn, Gesch. des neu
testamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 724 — 742. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lite
ratur, ii. i, 625 — 631. Zahn in Neue kirchliche Zeitschr. (1900), xi. 361 — 370,
believes that some Coptic fragments edited by A. Jakoby (Ein neues Evan-
geliumfragment, Straftburg, 1900) and by him assigned to the Gospel of
the Egyptians (see below), are really fragments of the Gospel of the Twelve.

1 Riis., Hist, eccl., iv. 22, 8.

2 Comm. in Matth. ad xii. 13. * Haer. 29 — 30.

4 Horn. i. in Lucam : TO i~i~ftypo.ij.tj.ivov TWV dwds~/.a

5 Hier., Dial. adv. Pelag., iii. 2. 6 Haer. 30.
1 Epiph., Haer. 30, 13.

92 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

Despite the similarity of title, the latter has no relation with the text pub
lished by y. Jtendel Harris, The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, together
with the Apocalypses of each one of them, edited from the Syriac ms., etc.,
Cambridge, 1900. Cf. Bessarione VIII (1903—1904), vol. v. 1421, 157 — 176,
for a French translation by E, Revittout of some unedited Coptic frag
ments that he thinks belong to the Gospel of the Twelve.

4. THE GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. Clement of Alexandria is
the first to mention1 a Gospel of the Egyptians (TO XO.T AlfUTtriotx;
edaffshovj, with the observation that it contained a dialogue of the
Lord with Salome, quoted by the Encratites (Julius Cassianus) to
show that marriage should be abolished. Hippolytus says2 that
the Naassenes made use of expressions from the Gospel of the
Egyptians (TO Ixifpayopsvov XUT AlfonriooQ etiaffehovj in defence
of their theories on the soul (and the transmigration of souls?).
Epiphanius3 says that the Sabellians established «their entire error»
and in particular their Modalistic doctrine of the Trinity, on the
Egyptian Gospel (TO xa/M'jjLtzvov Al-foxTtov etjafflfaovj. In the so-
called Second Letter to the Corinthians (12, 2) there is a reference
to the above-mentioned dialogue of Salome with the Lord. It is
doubtful whether this author used the Egyptian Gospel and indeed
whether he drew from any written Gospel. That the Gospel was
an heretical one is proven by the circles in which it was most wel
come — Encratites, Naassenes, Sabellians; in the words addressed to
Salome the Lord is made to preach the Pythagorean theory of numbers.
The work was very probably composed in Egypt about 150. — In
the territory of ancient Oxyrhynchus, in Lower Egypt, among the
debris of a mound of ruins, there was recently found a papyrus folio
containing seven Sayings, or mutilated fragments of Sayings, that
all begin with the formula )Afe.i 'lytrouQ. Some of these Sayings are
quite similar, in their entirety or in part, to words of our Lord in
the canonical Gospels ; most of them are quite foreign to the canonical
tradition and could never have been pronounced by our Saviour.
The folio probably belongs to a book of excerpts from some^ apo
cryphal Gospel. The most natural suggestion, owing to the place
of its discovery and the Encratite tendency of some of the Sayings,
is that they were taken from the Gospel of the Egyptians.

Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, extra can. rec., 2. ed., 1884, fasc. iv, pp. 42 — 48.
Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 628—642. Harnack, Gesch.
der altchristl. Literatur, ii. i, 612 — 622. — B. P. Gr en fell and A. S. Hunt,
A«fya 'ITJSOU, London, 1897. They are also found in Grenfell and Hunt,
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, London, 1898, i. E. Preuschen, Antilegomena,
pp. 43 — 44. For the discussions raised by the finding of these « Sayings*, cf.
Holtzmann inTheol. Jahresbericht (1897), xvii. 115 sq. ; (1898), xviii. 148 sq.,
also Harnack, Uber die jiingst entdeckten Spriiche Jesu, Freiburg, 1897.
G. Esser in the Katholik (1898), i. 26—43, 137 — 151- Ch. Taylor, The Oxy-

1 Strom., iii. 9, 63; 13, 93. 2 Philos., v. 7. 3 Haer. 62, 2.

§ 29. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 93

rhynchus Logia, Oxford, 1899. A. von Schoh in Theol. Quartalschr. (1900),
Ixxxii. i — 22. A. Chiapelli in Nuova Antologia, 4. series (1897), Ixxi.
524 — 534. U. Fracassini in Rivista Bibliografica Italiana (1898), iii. 513 — 518.
G. Semeria, Le Parole di Gesu recentemente scoperte e 1' ultima fase della
critica evangelica, Genova, 1898. For an extensive collection of extra-
canonical «Sayings» of Jesus, cf. A. Resch, Agrapha, Leipzig, 1898 (Texte
und Untersuchungen, v. 4), and J. H. Ropes, Die Spriiche Jesu, die in
den kanonischen Evangelien nicht iiberliefert sind, 1896 (ib., xiv. 2).

C. G. Griffinhoofe, The Unwritten Sayings of Christ, Words of Our
Lord not recorded in the four Gospels, including those recently discovered,
Cambridge, 1903. A new series of Logia from the papyri of Oxyrhynchus
is promised.

5. THE GOSPEL OF PETER. Until 1892, the Gospel of Peter was
known to us only through a few references in ancient writers. The
most important of these was found in Eusebius J, in a fragment of a
letter of Serapion, bishop of Antioch (about 200), to the Christians of
the neighbouring Rhossus or Rhosus on the coast of Syria. He forbids
therein the reading of a pseudo-Petrine Gospel (ovopart IHrpoo sfj-
affihov), which by certain additions (npoadtsffra^fJLiva) to the genuine
teaching of the Saviour was made to favour Docetism, and had been in
use among Docetic-minded Christians of Antioch and Rhossus. It is very
probable that to the same text belongs a Gospel-fragment edited in 1892
by Bouriant from an eighth-century codex, which contains the principal
part of the Lord's Passion, together with an account of the Resur
rection, very diffuse and highly embellished with quite curious mira
culous tales. The work bears internal evidence of being a remnant
of a pseudo-Petrine writing («But I, Simon Peter », v. 60; «But I,
with my companions» v. 26). Doceto-Gnostic ideas are also visible
in it («But he was silent as one who felt no grief at all» v. 10,
in reference to the Lord upon the Cross; cf. v. 19). Von Schubert
has proved that the author had before him the four Gospels, and
took certain features of his story now from one and now from another,
transforming at the same time the canonical narratives in the interest
of his own peculiar tendencies. His particular aim is to make the
Jews alone responsible for the death of the Lord, and to present the
Roman authorities in a light favourable to Christ and the Christians.
It was very probably composed, about the middle of the second
century, at Antioch in Doceto-Gnostic circles. There is no foundation
for the attempt to identify it with the work referred to by St. Justin
Martyr as dxofjwyfjLOvetifJLaTa flsTpo'j2. The work referred to under
that title in the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 1 06), is the canonical
Gospel of Mark, not the Gospel of Peter. According to Eusebius3
this Gospel was used more or less exclusively by heretics.

The codex discovered by U. Bouriant in a Christian tomb at Akhmim,
the ancient Panopolis, in Upper Egypt, contains, besides the above men-

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 12, 3-6. z Just., Dial. c. Tryph., c. 106.

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 6 — 7; cf. iii. 3, 2.

94 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

tioned text, an Apocalypse of Peter (§ 32, i) and important remnants of
the Greek Book of Enoch. The discoverer was the first to publish these
texts in Memoires publics par les membres de la Mission archeologique
franchise au Caire, Paris, 1892, ix., fasc. i, pp. 91 — 147, with a facsimile
of the whole codex and an introduction by A. Lods, ib.; ix., fasc. 3 (Paris,
1893). A facsimile of the pages containing the Petrine fragments, and an
accurate recension of the same/ were soon after published by O. von Geb-
hardt, Das Evangelium und die Apokalypse des Petrus, Leipzig, 1893. The
text is also in Preuscheu, Antilegomena, pp. 14—18; cf. pp. 13 — 14. The
remnants of the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Kerygma Petri,
were edited by E. Klostermann and H. Lietzmann, in Kleine Texte fiir theol.
Vorlesungen und Ubungen, Apocrypha i, Bonn, 1903. An English trans
lation was made by y. Armitage Robinson, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am.
ed. 1885), ix. 7 — 8. For the «literary deluge» that followed the dis
covery of these fragments cf. H. Liidemann, in Theol. Jahresbericht (1892),
xii. 171 — 173; (1893), xiii. 171 — 181; (1894), xiv. 185 ff. It will be enough
to indicate the following: Ad. Harnack, Bruchstiicke des Evangeliums und
der Apokalypse des Petrus (Texte und Untersuchungen, ix. 2), Leipzig,
1893; 2. ed., ib., 1898. Funk, Fragmente des Evangeliums und der Apo
kalypse des Petrus, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1893), Ixxv. 255—288. Th. Zahn,
Das Evangelium des Petrus, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1893. H. von Schubert,
Die Komposition des pseudopetrinischen Evangelienfragments (with a syn
optical table), Berlin, 1893. D. Volter , Petrusevangelium oder Agypter-
evangelium? Tubingen, 1893. He is of opinion that the fragment belongs
to the Egyptian Gospel (see p. 92). E. Piccolomini, Sul testo dei frammenti
dell' Evangelic e dell' Apocalissi del Pseudo-Petro, Rome, 1899. S. Minocchi,
II Nuovo Testamento tradotto ed annotato, Roma, 1900, pp. 385 — 391, a
partial version of the Gospel of Peter. V. H. Stanton, The Gospel of Peter :
Its History and Character considered in relation to the history of the re
cognition in the Church of the canonical Gospels, in Journal of Theo
logical Studies (1900), ii. i — 25. Stocks, Zum Petrusevangelium, in Neue
kirchl. Zeitschr. (1902), xiii. 276 — 314; ib. (1903), pp. 515—542. H.Usener,
Eine Spur des Petrusevangeliums (in the Acts of St. Pancratios of Taor-
mina), in Zeitschr. fiir die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 353 — 358.
F. H. Chase, (art.) «Peter» 10. (i) «The Gospel of Peter », in Hastings
Diet, of the Bible (1900), vol. Ill, p. 776.

6. THE GOSPELS OF MATTHIAS, PHILIP, AND THOMAS. The Gospel
of Matthias1 seems to have been identical with the « Traditions of
Matthias » 2 often cited by Clement of Alexandria, a Gnostic work,
especially favoured by the Basilidians3 and probably used by Ba-
silides himself and his son Isidore4. The Gospel of Philip was also
of Gnostic origin. The name is first found in Epiphanius5, and it
was probably known to the Gnostic author of Pistis Sophia 6, between
250 and 300. The Gospel of Thomas was also a Gnostic product. It
is mentioned by Hippolytus 7 and Origen 8 and very probably existed
before the time of Irenaeus9. In its actual forms, Greek, Latin,
Syriac, Slavonic, it is only an abbreviated and expurgated copy of

1 Orig., Horn. I in Luc. Ens. 1. c , iii. 25, 6—7.

* Clem. Al., Strom., ii. 9, 45; vii. 13, 82: Ttapaduatiq Mar&iou.

3 Ib., vii. 17, 108. 4 Hippol., Philos., vii. 20.

5 Haer. 26, 13. 6 Cf. the edition of Schwartze-Fetertnann, pp. 69 ff.

7 Philos., v. 7. 8 Hoin. I in Luc. 9 Adv. haer., i. 20, i»

§ 29. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 95

the original work; the longer and perhaps the older of the various
recensions bears in Tischendorf the title : 0(o/j.a 'lapayttToo (pdoaoyoo
faro, dc, ra xaidr/M. TOO xopiou. It is addressed to the Christians
converted from heathenism (c. i) and relates a series of miracles said
to have been performed by Christ from the fifth to the twelfth year
of His youth. The Divine Child is presented to us utterly without
dignity, and is made to exhibit His miraculous powers in a manner
at the very best quite puerile. The style is vulgar, and the diction
is as common as the content is disgusting.

For the Gospel and Traditions of Matthias cf. Th. Zahn, Gesch. des
neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 751 — 761; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl.
Literatur, i. 17 f . ; ii. i, 595—598. For the Gospel of Philip cf. Zahn, 1. c.,
ii. 2, 761 — 768; Harnack, 1. c., i. 14 f. ; ii. i, 592 ff. The longer of the
two Greek recensions of the Gospel of Thomas was edited by J. A. Min-
garelli, in Nuova Raccolta d' opuscoli scientifici e filologici, Venezia, 1764,
xii. 73 — 155-, by y. C. Thilo, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Leipzig,
1832, i. 275 — 315 (cf. LXXII— xci); by C. Tischendorf, Evangelia apo
crypha (2. ed., Leipzig, 1876), pp. 140 — 157 (cf. xxxvi — XLVIII). Tischen
dorf^. c., pp. 158 — 163) added a shorter Greek recension to the longer one
and (pp. 164 — 1 80) a Latin Tractatus de pueritia Jcsu secundum Thomam.
W. Wright translated and published a Syriac version in Contributions to
the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament, London, 1865, pp. n — 16
for the Syriac, pp. 6 — IT for the Flnglish text. For the Slavonic recensions
cf. Bonwetsch, in Harnack, 1. c., i. 910. A German version of the longer
Greek recension in Thilo is found in K. Fr. Borberg, Bibliothek der neu
testamentl. Apokryphen, Stuttgart, 1841, i. 57 — 84; L. Conrady, Das Thomas-
evangelium, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1903), Ixxvi. 378 — 459. For
the Gospel of Thomas cf. Zahn, 1. c., ii. 2, 768 — 773; Harnack, 1. c., i
15 — 17; ii. i, 593 — 595. E. Kuhn attempted, unsuccessfully, to prove the
Buddhistic origin of the stories in the Gospel of St. Thomas concerning
the marvellous knowledge shown in the village school by the Divine Child a.
Festgabe zum fiinfzigjahrigen Doktorjubilaum of A. Weber, Leipzig, 1896,
pp. 116 — 119.

7. THE PROTEVANGELIUM JACOBI. A much better impression is
created by the so-called Protevangelium Jacobi, which gives an
account of the life of the Blessed Virgin until the Slaughter of the
Innocents at Bethlehem. The names of her parents are here given
for the first time as Joachim and Anna. The diction is chaster, the
whole tone of the narrative more noble, and the contents more inter
esting and important than in most other apocrypha. The author calls
himself «Jacobus», and his book a «History» (jLOTopia, c. 25,1). The
title of Protevangelium (TCptoTSuaffiXiov)) i. e. primum evangelium,
was given the work by G. Postel (f 1581). There are difficulties in
the way of admitting a single authorship for the text as found in
the manuscripts. In the narrative of the birth of the Lord (cc. 1 8, 2;
19, i 2) there is no introduction, and Joseph appears suddenly on
the scene speaking in the first person. The closing chapters (22 — 24),

1 Cf. cc. 6 and 14 of the longer Greek recension, and Iren., Adv. haer., i. 20, I.

96 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

in which are related the persecution of John the Baptist on the
occasion of the Slaughter of the Innocents, and the execution of
his father Zacharias by order of Herod, seem to be later ad
ditions. The first express mention of the work (at least of its original
nucleus) is by Origen 1, but traces of it are found with sufficient cer
tainty in the writings of Justin2. Its composition is, therefore,
generally referred to the first decades of the second century. The
author was certainly a Judseo-Christian, not from Palestine, perhaps,
but from Egypt or Asia Minor. There is no sufficient foundation
for the hypothesis of Conrady that the Greek text is a translation
of a Hebrew original. In so far as it deals with biblical material,
the Gospel is based on the narratives of Matthew and Luke; the
features relative to the time before the espousals of Joseph and
Mary tend to glorify the Mother of God, but have no historical value.
The edifying tendency of the book is responsible for its wide diffusion
and the great influence it has exercised.

The editio princeps of the Greek text is that of M. Neander , Basle,
1564. The best editions are those of Thilo, Codex apocr. Novi Test.,
Leipzig, 1832, i. 159 — 273 (cf. XLV — LXXII), and Tischendorf, Evang. apocr.
(2. ed., Leipzig, 1876), pp. i — 50 (cf. xn — xxn). In a work entitled An
Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri, chiefly Ptolemaic,
Oxford, 1896, pp. 13 — 19, B. P. Grenfell published a fifth- or sixth-century
papyrus fragment (cc. 7, 2 — 10, i), of the Protevangelium. A fragment
of a Syriac version (cc. 17 — 25), with an English translation, is found in
Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament,
London, 1865. - - The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae, with
texts from the Septuagint, the Coran, the Peschitto and from a Syriac
hymn in a Syro-Arabic palimpsest of the fifth and other centuries, edited
and translated by A. Smith Lewis, Cambridge, 1902 (Studia Sinaitica, n. XI).
E. Nestle, Ein syrisches Bruchstiick aus dem Protoevangelium Jacobi, in
Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 86 — 87. In the Ame
rican Journal of Theology (1897), i. 424 — 442, F. C. Conybeare made known
an Armenian version, and translated it into English. For the Slavonic
versions cf. N. Bonwetsch, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i.
909 ff. ; for Coptic and Arabic versions Thilo, 1. c., Proleg. pp. LXVII ff.
There are German versions by Borberg (after Thilo), Bibliothek der neu
testamentl. Apokryphen (Stuttgart, 1841), i. 9 — 56, and by F. A. v. Lehner
(after Tischendorf} , Die Marienverehrung in den ersten Jahrhunderten
(2. ed., Stuttgart, 1886), pp. 223 — 236. L. Conrady , Das Protevangelium
Jacobi in neuer Beleucntung, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1889), Ixii.
728—784. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 774 — 780. Id.,
Retractiones, iv, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. (1902), xiii. 19 — 22. Harnack,
1. c., ii. i, 598—603.

8. THE GOSPELS OF ANDREW, BARNABAS, AND BARTHOLOMEW.
In the so-called Decretal of Gelasius, De recipiendis et non re-
cipiendis libris, we meet with the titles of Apocryphal Gospels : nomine
Andreae, nomine Barnabae, nomine Bartholomaei. Probably under the

1 Comm. in Matth., x. 17: ^ pit3koq 'laxatfioo.

2 Dial. c. Tryph., cc. 78, 100; Apol., i. 33.

§ 30- APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 97

name of Gospel of Andrew are meant the Acts of St. Andrew (§ 30, 6)
mentioned by Pope Innocent I. * and by St. Augustine 2. No Gospel
of Barnabas is mentioned in ancient ecclesiastical literature ; at a later
period we meet with but one mention of it in the (Greek) Catalogue
of the Sixty Canonical Books. A Gospel of Bartholomew is spoken
of by St. Jerome 3, but no more precise knowledge of it has reached us.

The Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books has been lately edited
anew by Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. i, 289 — 293. A frag
ment of the Gospel of Bartholomew is said to exist in a codex of the
Vatican Library: A. Mai, Nova Patr. Bibl., Rome, 1854, vii. 3, 117.
W. E. A. Axon, On the Mahommedan Gospel of Barnabas, in Journal of
Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 441 — 453.

9. ORIGINS OF THE PILATE-LITERATURE. Apropos of the mi
racles of the Lord and His crucifixion, Justin Martyr refers the
Roman Emperors to the Acts of the trial under Pilate (TO. ITT}
Uovrwu nddroo ys.vbfi.zva axra)*. It is probable that he had not in
mind any published document current under that title, but took it
for granted that the acts of the trial of Jesus wrere to be found in
the imperial archives at Rome. The extant Acta or Gesta Pilati,
or Evangelium Nicodemi, relate the interrogatory before Pilate, the
condemnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. They are of
Christian origin, and are not older than the fourth century. Ter-
tullian mentions5 a report of Pilate to Tiberius on the death and
resurrection of our Lord. The Letter of Pilate to Emperor Claudius,
in the Acts of Peter and Paul (§ 30, 4), might be a revision of
of this report; it is, in any case, of Christian origin.

R. A. Lipsius , Die Pilatusakten kritisch untersucht, Kiel, 1871.
If. v. Schubert , Die Komposition des pseudo-petrinischen Evangelienfrag-
ments, Berlin. 1893, pp. 175 ff. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur,
ii. i, 603 ff. The Anaphora Pilati etc., in Syriac and Arabic, Studia
Sinaitica (1890), v. 15 — 66, with English translation, i — 14. E. v. Dobschiitz,
Der Prozeft Jesu nach den Acta Pilati, in Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl.
Wissensch. (1902), iii. 89 114. G. F. Abbott, The Report and Death of
Pilate, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iv. 83 — 88. T/i. Mommsen,
Die Pilatusakten, in Zeitschr. f. neutest. Wissenschaft (1902), iii. 198 — 205.
T. H. Bindley, Pontius Pilate in the Creed, in Journal of Theol. Studies
(1904), vi. 112—113.

§ 30. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.

I. THE PREACHING OF PETER AND THE PREACHING OF PAUL.
Clement of Alexandria cites frequently6 a « Preaching of Peter» (IHrpou
x-qp'j-flULa), and treats it as a trustworthy source of teaching of the
prince of the Apostles. Similarly we learn from Origen 7 that the

1 Ep. 6 ad Exsup., c. 7. 2 Contra adv. leg. et proph., i. 20, 39.

3 Comm. in Matth., prol. 4 Apol., i. 35, 48 ; cf. c. 38.

5 Apol., c. 21 ; cf. c. 5. ° Strom., i. 29, 182; ii. 15, 68, etc.

7 Comm. in Joan., xiii. 17.
BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 7

98 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

Gnostic Heracleon (ca. 160 — 170) invoked the authority of this
work. Origen himself doubts (1. c.) its authenticity, and Eusebius
rejects it quite decidedly as an apocryphal writing 1. Nevertheless,
it found acceptance as late as the time of John of Damascus; for
the « Teaching of Peter » (IliTpov didaaxati.a) that is quoted by him2,
is very probably the same as the « Preaching of Peter » 3. The lost
original probably contained no continuous didactic exposition but a
series of discourses pretending to be the work of Peter; both xypo-ftjia
and dtdaaxaXia usually indicate teaching of a collective character.
The meagre fragments that have reached us treat of the mission
of the twelve Apostles by the Lord, of the true, i. e. the Christian
adoration of God, and show no traces of heretical teaching. It was
probably composed between 100 and 125 (cf. § 15), perhaps by
reason of a misunderstanding of II Pet. i. 15. - - The only mention
of a « Preaching of Paul » (Pauli praedicatio) is in the pseudo-Cyprianic
writing De rebaptismate (c. 17); very probably, however, it is the
«Acts ofPaul» that are quoted (seep. 100). There seems to be no
sufficient reason for the hypothesis of Hilgenfeld, according to which
the Preaching of Peter and the Preaching of Paul were originally
one work under the' title IHrpo'j xal IIai>Aoi> xypuffia.

Extant fragments of these works are collected and put in order by
A. Hilgenfeld, in his Nov. Test, extra can. rec. (2. ed., Leipzig, 1884),
iv. 51 — 65; for the fragment of the x^ou-f^a IHrpoo cf. also Preuschen,
Antilegomena, Gieften, 1901, pp. 52 — 54. The single fragments are discussed
in much detail by E. von Dobsckntz , Das Kerygma Petri kritisch unter-
sucht, Leipzig, 1893 (Texte und Untersuchungen, xi. i). Cf. Hilgenfeld,
in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1893), ii. 518 — 541, and Zahn, Gesch.
des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), ii. 2, 820 — 832, 881 — 885. Apart from
their title, the IKtpou xrrjpuffJiaTtt, that pretend to be the basis of the Cle
mentines (cf. § 26, 3), have nothing to do with the above-mentioned text.
The « Doctrine of Simon Cephas in the City ofRome», a Syriac text of which
was published by W. Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, London, 1864,
pp. 35 — 41 , is not older than the latter half of the fourth century. Cf.
Lipsius , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden (1887),
ii. i, 206 sq. -- A. Smith Lewis , The mythological Acts of the Apostles
translated from an Arabic manuscript in the Convent of Deyr-es-Suriani,
Egypt, and from mss. in the Convent of St. Catherine of Mount Sinai, and
in the Vatican Library. With a translation of the palimpsest fragments of
the Acts of Judas Thomas from Cod. Sin. Syr. (Horae Semiticae, iii. iv
[London, 1904] xlvi, 265 ; viii, 228 pp.). y. G. Tasker, Mythological Acts
of the Apostles, in Expository Times (1904), pp. no — in.

2. THE ACTS OF PETER. In their original form the Acts (itpdfeiQ)
of Peter are an extended Gnostic narrative of the doings and suf
ferings of the prince of the Apostles, composed shortly after the
middle of the second century; the story has reached us in a respect-

1 Hist, eccl., iii. 3, 2 ; cf. Hier., De viris illustr., c. i.
- Sacra Parallela: Migne, PG., xcv. 1157, 1461.
3 Cf. Orig., De princ. praef. n. 8 : Petri doctrina.

§ 30- APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 99

able number of fragments. The account of the martyrdom of the
Apostle, which certainly formed the conclusion of the work, is extant
in the original Greek (fjLapTUpwv TOO ay'iou dizoGToXou Ilirpoo) and in
a rhetorically enlarged Latin version (Martyrium Beati Petri a Lino
episcopo conscriptum)'. there can be no doubt that in this inscription
it is Linus, the first successor of Peter, who is meant. A revised
text is also found in Old -Slavonic, Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic, and
Ethiopic. Of the two Greek codices hitherto known, one has pre
served, together with the account of the martyrdom, a small frag
ment of the preceding narrative. A larger fragment is attached to
the martyrdom in a rudely-executed Latin version known as Actus
Petri cum Simone. This text, as just said, represents the most im
portant of the extant fragments of the ancient Acts of Peter. In it
are told the labours of St. Peter at Rome, his triumph over Simon
Magus in the performance of miracles, the wretched end of the
magician in consequence of his attempted flight to heaven, and
at great length the glorious martyrdom of the Apostle who was
crucified head downward. That it is a work of Gnostic origin and
nature is plain from its Docetism, its prohibition of sexual inter
course even among married persons, and its celebration of the
Eucharist with bread and water. The first certain evidence of it is
in Commodian1, though the actual title is first mentioned by Eusebius2
who says that it was an heretical work. According to Lipsius and
Zahn it was written about 160 — I/O, and by the author of the Acts
of John (see p. 105), if similarity of ideas and diction are enough to
prove the identity of authorship. Pope Innocent I. (401 — 417) de
clared3 that the afore-mentioned Leucius (cf. § 28, 3) was the author
of both the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John.

The fragments of the Acts of Peter are found in Acta apostolorum
apocrypha, edd. R. A. Lipsius et M. Bonnet, part I, Leipzig, 1891. In this
work were first published from a Cod. Vercellensis (saec. vii) the Actus Petri
cum Simone, pp. 45 — 103. Lipsius had already published, in Jahrbiicher
fiir prot. Theol. (1886), xii. 86 ff. (cf. p. 175 ff.), the jj-ap-rupiov TOU dfi'ou
aTrocjToXou IIsTpou that is found, pp. 78—102, in Lipsius and Bonnet; cf.
ib., proleg., pp. xiv ff., for an account of some earlier unserviceable editions
of the Martyrium Beati Petri apostoli a Lino episcopo conscriptum, pp. i — 22.
For the Old-Slavonic, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions of the martyr
dom, cf. Lipsius and Bonnet, proleg., pp. LIV. ff. We have already men
tioned (§ 25, 3) a Coptic Ilpacjis llsrpou of Gnostic origin.

An Armenian version of the martyrdom of Peter was published by
P. Vetter , Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelakten , i. Das gnostische
Martyrium Petri, in Oriens christianus (1901), i. 217 — 239. The Acts of
Peter are more fully treated by Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten
und Apostellegenden (1887), ii. i, 85 —284, and in the supplement (1890),

1 Carm. apolog. 626, ed. Dombarl.

" Hist, eccl., iii. 3, 2; cf. Hier., De viris illustr., c. i.

3 Ep. 6 ad Exsup., c. 7.

CHRIST!
8J8, MAJ.

IOO FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

pp. 34 — 47. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 832 — 855.
J. Frankoy Beitrage aus dem Kirchenslavischen zu den Apokryphen des
Neuen Testaments, ii: Zu den gnostischen rrspioooi fU-rpou, in Zeitschr. fiir
die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 3157-335. A. Baumstark , Die
Petrus- und Paulusakten in der literarischen Uberlieferung der syrischen
Kirche, Leipzig, 1902, and P. Peeters , in Analecta Bolland. (1902), xxi.
121 — 140. A. Hilgenfeld, Die alten Actus Petri, in Zeitschr. fiir wissen-
schaftl. Theol. (1903), xlvi. 322 — 341. K. Schmidt, Die alten Petrusakten
im Zusammenhang der apokryphen Apostelliteratur, nebst einem neuent-
deckten Fragment untersucht, in Texte und Untersuchungen , new series,
ix. i. G. Picker, Die Petrusakten, Beitrage zu ihrem Verstandnis, Leipzig,
1904. It is strange that Harnack (Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, ii. i,
449 f.) should reject the Gnostic origin and tendency of the Acts of Peter,
and refer them to the middle of the third century. James , on the other
hand, has lately defended the identity of the author of the Acts of
Peter with the second century writer of the Acts of John. Cf. Apocrypha
Anecdota, 2. series (Cambridge, 1897), pp. xxiv flf. ; also Harnack, Texte
und Untersuchungen, new series (1900), v. 3, 100 — 106.

3. THE ACTS OF PAUL. About the time (160 — 170) of the
publication of the Gnostic Acts of Peter, Catholic Acts (npasstt;) of
Paul were put in circulation. Eusebius1 places them among the
dvTde^ofjieva of the New Testament ; Origen 2 cites them twice in a
friendly and approving way; Hippolytus3 treats them, without specific
mention of their title, as a well-known and accepted historical book.
It is very probable that the Preaching of Paul mentioned in the De
rebaptismate (see p. 98) is none other than these Acts of Paul.
In the so-called Catalogus Claromontanus, an index of the biblical
books made about 300, the length of these Acts is put down as
3560 verses or lines. In the Stichometria attributed to Nicephorus,
patriarch of Constantinople (806 — 815), they are set down as containing
3600 lines. It is only lately that more light has been thrown on such
high figures by the discovery that the Acts of Paul and Thecla (see p. 102)
and the apocryphal Correspondence of Paul and the Corinthians (§3.1, 3)
are in reality parts of the original Acts of Paul, although at a very
early date these two sections took on an independent form. The proof
of this was furnished in 1897 by Schmidt's discovery at Heidelberg, in
a papyrus-roll, of fragments of a Coptic version of the Acts of Paul.
Confirmation was soon forthcoming from the so-called Caena Cypriani,
a biblical cento, probably of the fifth century, for the composition of
which, as Harnack saw (1899), not only were the biblical writings used,
but also the Acts of Paul in their complete form. Besides these two
larger sections of the Acts of Paul, there has also been preserved
the conclusion of this lengthy work, its martyrdom-narrative, both in
the Greek original (fiaproptov TOO afiou dxoaToko'j IlauXov) and in

1 Hist, eccl., iii. 3, 5; 25, 4.

2 Comm. in Joan., xx. 12; De princ., i. 2, 3.

3 Comm. in Dan., iii. 29, 4, ed. Bonwelsch.

§ 30. APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. IOI

several translations: Latin, Slavonic, Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic, Ethiopic.
Hitherto only fragments of the Latin translation, in its original form,
have been recognized and published ; its complete text has reached
us in a later recension. In the more recent manuscripts of this
text it is ascribed to Pope Linus (see p. 99), while the earlier manu
scripts present it as an anonymous work : Passio Sancti Pauli apostoli.
According to this narrative Paul preached at Rome with great suc
cess concerning the Eternal King, Jesus Christ, and thereby irritated
Nero who issued edicts of persecution against the « soldiers of the
Great King». By the Emperor's order Paul was beheaded. That
these Acts were of Catholic origin is proven by the evidence of those
who first mention them : Hippolytus, Origen, and Eusebius. Moreover
no traces of heresy, especially of Gnosticism, have been found in
the extant fragments.

For the Greek and the two Latin texts of the martyrdom of Paul, of.
Lipsius, in Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius et Bonnet, part L, 1891 ; Lipsius
had already made known the Greek text (ib. 104 — 117) and the earlier
Latin text (ib. 105 — 113) (passionis Pauli fragmentum), in Jahrbiicher fur
prot. Theol. (1886), xii. 86 ff. (cf. 175 ff.) and 334 sq. (cf. 691 ff.).

The later Latin text (Lipsius and Bonnet, 23 — 44) was already well-
known; cf. Lipsius, proleg. , pp. xiv ff. , and ib., pp. LVI ff.. for the Sla
vonic, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions. The Acts of Paul are dis
cussed in detail by Lipsius s Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostel-
legenden, ii. i, 85 — 284, and in the Supplement, pp. 34 — 47. Zahn, Gesch.
des neutestament. Kanons, ii. 2, 865 — 891. On the original form and the
remnants of the Acts of Paul cf. C.Schmidt, in Neue Heidelberger Jahrbiicher
(1897), vii. 117 — 124; Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen, xix, new
series (1899), iv. 3b; P. Corssen, Die Urgestalt der Paulusakten, in Zeitschr.
fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1903), iv. 22 — 47 ; C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli,
aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrus-Handschrift , n. i, Ubersetzung,
Untersuchungen und koptischer Text, Leipzig, 1904, LVI, 240, 80 pp. A
photographic facsimile of the Coptic text was published by Schmidt (ib.,
1904). See Shahan, Cath. Univ. Bulletin (Washington, 1905), x. 484 — 488.

4. THE ACTS OF PETER AND PAUL. The origin of these Acts is
very obscure. Unlike the two preceding, they contain the later
history of both the Apostles and tend to show a close homogeneity
and a continuous concord between the two Apostles. Lipsius be
lieves that they also were composed in the second century. There are,
however, only very obscure traces of them before the fifth century,
in Hippolytus1, Cyril of Jerusalem2, Asterius ofAmasea3, and Sulpicius
Severus 4. The work was surely of Catholic origin, and probably
compiled with the purpose of withdrawing from the hands of the
faithful the heretical Acts of Peter (see p. 98). All extant fragments
show evidence of a later revision. The Greek texts, usually entitled

1 Philos., vi. 20. 2 Catech. 6, c. 15.

3 Horn. 8 in SS. Apost. Petr. et Paul., sub fine; cf. Migne, PG., xl. 297 ff.

* Chron. ii. 28.

IO2 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

rcbv ayicov diiocrTohoy IHrpoo YJU IlaoXoo, relate the journey
of St. Paul to Rome and the martyrdom of both Apostles. One
Greek codex (Marcianus , saec. xvi) relates only the martyrdom
fft&pTijptov rwv afiajv dxoaroXcov IHrpoo xal ffafikooji and is silent as
to the Roman journey; even in its account of the former it offers
a text that differs much from the other Greek codices, while it
presents a close affinity with an early Latin version, which also
omits the journey to Rome and is likewise entitled Passio sancto
rum apostolorum Petri et Pauli. There are extant also an Old-
Slavonic and an Old -Italian version. It seems certain that the
basis of the journey-narrative is found in the story of St. Paul's journey
from the island of Cauda to Rome described in the canonical Acts
of the Apostles (cc. xxvii — xxviii). In its account of the martyrdom
of the Apostles this work profited much by the similar narrative in
the Acts of Peter.

The Greek text of the martyrdom of both Apostles and of the journey to
Rome was edited by J. C. Thilo, in two programmes of the University of Halle,
1837 — 1838; by C. Tischendorf, in his Acta apostol. apocrypha, pp. i — 39;
by Lipsius, in Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius and Bonnet, i. 178 — 222.
In addition Lipsius reprinted (ib., pp. 118 — 176) the second recension of
the Greek text, minus the journey-narrative (codex Marcianus saec. xvi), also
the early Latin version of the martyrdom (pp. 119 — 177), and a later Latin
compilation on the martyrdom of the two Apostles (pp. 223 — 234). For
the early-Slavonic and Italian versions cf. ib., proleg. pp. LXXXIX ff., and
Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, ii. i, 284
to 390. Supplement, pp. 47 — 61. P. Vetter, Die armenischen apokryphen
Apostelakten, ii : Die Akten der Apostel Petrus und Paulus, in Oriens Christi-
anus (1903), pp. 16—55.

5. THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. These Acts have come to us
down in their Greek text, likewise in several Latin translations and in
Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, and Arabic recensions. In the manu
scripts the Greek text bears the title Kpd&iq DaoXoo xai Oextys, also
fjLapTijpiov TTjQ frficLQ npoTOfidpTUpOQ OsxtyQ , or the like. Jerome
calls it Ttepiodot Pauli et Theclae1. The object of the very simple
and unpretending tale is the story of Thecla, a noble virgin of
Iconium in Lycaonia. Fascinated by the preaching of St. Paul she
resolves on abandoning her betrothed to serve God in the state of
virginity. For this decision she suffers many torments and persecutions.
After her miraculous liberation she devotes herself to the preaching of
the Gospel, with the consent and by the commission of the Apostle.
There is probably an historical nucleus to the narrative — the conver
sion and martyrdom of a Thecla of Iconium, the portrait of St. Paul
(c. 3), the meeting of Thecla with Queen Tryphaena (cc. 27 ff, 39 ff).
But the truth is overlaid with much that is fanciful ; in general these
Acts are a highly romantic work of imagination. The historical frame-

1 De viris illustr., c. 7.

§ 3°- APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. IC>3

work of the narrative is furnished by the so-called first journey of
St. Paul, described in the canonical Acts (cc. xiii — xiv), and many of
the characters that figure in it are drawn from the Second Epistle to
Timothy. Since the third and fourth centuries, the Thecla-legend,
originally vouched for by these Acts of Paul and Thecla, spread
widely throughout the whole Church. Tertullian relates 1 that they
were composed by a priest of Asia Minor who was possessed by
a fanatical admiration for St. Paul. For this action the priest was
deposed from his office. Jerome repeats (1. c.) the statement of Ter
tullian, with the addition that the judgment of the priest took place
in the presence of the Apostle John (apud Joannem), an assertion
which is surely erroneous. It has been lately shown (see p. 100) that
the Acts of Paul and Thecla are only a fragment of the Acts of
Paul; hence they were composed about 160 — 170. It is quite cre
dible that the Acts of Paul were written by a Catholic priest; he
was punished, not so much because he put forth unecclesiastical
doctrine, as because he gave currency to historical falsehoods.

The Greek text of the Acts of Paul and Thecla is found in J. E. Grabe,
Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et haereticorum, Oxford, 1698, i. 95 — 119 (and
thence in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., Venice, 1765, i. 177 — 191); Tischen-
dorf3 Acta apost. apocr., pp. 40 — 63. Lipsius, Acta apost. apocr. , edd.
Lipsius et Bonnet, i. 235 — 272. There are in print three ancient Latin
versions of the Acts, one in the collection of Legends of the Saints,
published at Milan in 1476 by B. Mombritius (without title or pagination), a
second in Grabe 1. c., pp. 120 — 127 (Gallandi\. c.), the third in Bibliotheca
Casinensis iii, (1877), Florileg. 271 — 276. O. v. Gebhardt, Passio S. Theclae
virginis. Die lateinische Ubersetzung der Acta Pauli et Theclae, nebst
Fragmenten, Ausziigen und Beilagen (Texte und Untersuchungen , new
series, vii. 2), Leipzig, 1902. W. Wright published and translated the Syriac
version of these Acts in his Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, London,
1871, i. 127 — 169 (Syriac); ii. 116 — 145 (English). The Armenian version
was translated into English by F. C. Conybeare, The Apology and Acts
of Apollonius and other Monuments of Early Christianity, London, 1894;
2. ed. 1896. For a Slavonic and an Arabic translation of the Acts cf.
Lipsius 1. c., proleg., p. en. C, Schlau , Die Akten des Paulus und der
Thekla und die altere Thekla-Legende, Leipzig, 1877. Lipsius, Die apo-
kryphen Apostelgeschichten, ii. i, 424 — 467; Supplement, pp. 61 sq. 104.
A. Rey , £tude sur les Acta Pauli et Theclae et la le'gende de The'cla,
Paris, 1890. Zahn , Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 892 — 910.
Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 136 — 138 (Preuschen)\ ii. i,
493 — 505. W. M. Ramsay , The Church in the Roman Empire before
A. D. 170, 2. ed., London, 1893, pp. 375 — 428. Id., A Lost Chapter of
Early Christian History (Acta Pauli et Theclae), in Expositor, 1902,
pp. 278 — 295. Cf. J. Gwynn, Thecla, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr. (London,
1887), iv. 882—896.

6. THE ACTS OF ANDREW. Eusebius2 is the first to mention Acts
(irpd£etgj of the Apostle Andrew, observing that they were used only
by «heretics», Gnostics perhaps, or Manichseans according to other

1 De bapt., c. 17. ~ Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 6.

IO4 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

writers *. The work was held in high esteem by the Priscillianists 2. Pope
Innocent I. says3 that its authors were the « philosophers » Nexocharides
(Xenocharides?) and Leonidas. Possibly he may have found this state
ment in the Acts themselves, though some have seen in these names
a distortion of the name of Leucius Charinus (§ 28, 3). The Acts are
certainly of Gnostic origin and were probably written in the latter half
of the second century, according to Lipsius by the author of the Gnostic
Acts of Peter (see p. 98) and the Gnostic Acts of John (see p. 105).
Some fragments of the original Acts of Andrew have been preserved
in citations and narratives of ecclesiastical writers, e. g. the story of a
certain Maximilla related by Evodius of Uzalum*, and the prayer of
Andrew upon the Cross related by the pseudo- Augustine 5. Lengthy
fragments of this work, which was apparently an extensive one, have
reached us in recensions executed by Catholic hands. Among the
printed fragments is a Greek text entitled Tcpd&u; 'Avdpiou xal
Mar&sia slg ryv nbfav TOJV dvfypcoTtocpdftov. It is also found in several
translations: Syriac, Coptic (Sahidic), Ethiopic, and Anglo-Saxon.
Andrew frees miraculously his fellow- Apostle Matthias who was held in
prison by the Anthropophagi. After suffering grievous torments he
preaches the Gospel successfully to his captors. Here the narration
breaks off quite abruptly, only to be resumed and carried on in a
second Greek fragment entitled xpdqztQ rwv a^iaj^ aTtoaToAcoy IHrpou
xai Avdpia, preserved also in Slavonic and Ethiopic. Its subject is
the happy issue soon vouchsafed to the mission of the two Apostles
(at once companions and brothers) in the « city of the Barbarians » (iv
T7j iroAet TOJV flapftdpcuv). Both « Anthropophagi » and «Barbarians»
are to be looked for about the shores of the Black Sea. The
ancient Acts make Andrew go into Pontus from Greece (Philastr.
1. c.) and narrate his death on the cross at Patrae in Achaia. His
death is the theme of the [jtapropiov TOO afiov dito0T6Aov 'Avdplou,
which we possess both in a Greek and a Latin text. It pretends to
be the work of his personal disciples and eye-witnesses of the facts,
i. e. of « priests and deacons of the churches of Achaia », but is
probably not older than the fifth century. Lipsius is of opinion
that the Greek text is the original and the Latin a translation,
but Bonnet is doubtless right in maintaining that the Latin is the
original, and he distinguishes two Greek versions.

The «Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Anthropophagi »
were edited in Greek by Thilo, in a program of the University of Halle
in 1846, and by Tischendorf, in Acta apost. apocr., pp. 132 — 166; cf. the
Appendix in Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocr., pp. 139 — 141. For the various

1 Epiph., Haer., 47, I ; 61, i; 63, 2. Philastr., De haeres., c. 88.

2 Turib., Ep. ad Idac. et Cepon., c. 5. 3 Ep. 6 ad Exsup., c. 7.

4 De fide contra Manichaeos, c. 38.

5 De vera et falsa poenitentia, c. 8, 22.

§ 30. APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. IC>5

versions cf. Lipsius , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten , i. 546 ff., and
Supplement, pp. 259 ff. The «Acts of the holy Apostles Peter and Andrew »
were published in Greek by Tischendorf , Apocal. apocr. , pp. 161 — 167.
For the versions cf. Lipsius, \. c., i. 553. The « Martyrdom of the holy
Apostle Andrew» was published in Greek by C. Chr. Woog, Leipzig, 1749
(Gallandi , Bibl. vet. Patr., Venice, 1765, pp. 152 — 165), and by Tischen
dorf, Acta apost. apocr., pp. 105 — 131. An Italian version from the Greek
was brought out by M. Mallio, Venice, 1797, and Milan, 1882. The Latin
text of these Acts was already printed by Mombritius (see p. 103), in his
Leggendario, and has since been often reprinted (cf. Gallandi, 1. c.). All
the aforenamed Greek and Latin texts, with some new pieces, including
a long Greek fragment «Ex actis Andreae» (38 — 45) were edited by
Bonnet, in the Acta apost. apocr. of Lipsius and Bonnet (1898), ii. i, i
to 127. In Lipsius, 1. c., i, 545 ff . , there is a discussion of more recent
recensions of the legend of Andrew. Three works quoted by Lipsius
from the manuscripts have since been published by Bonnet, in Analecta
Bollandiana (1894), xiii. 309 — 378, and separately in Supplementum codicis
apocryphi, Paris, 1895, ii; Acta Andreae cum laudatione contexta (Greek);
Martyrium Andreae (Greek); Passio Andreae (Latin). For the Slavonic
version of the Acts of Andrew cf. M. N. Speranskij , The Apocryphal
Acts of the Apostle Andrew in the Old-Slavonic texts (Russian), Moscow,
1894. On the Acts of Andrew in general cf. Lipsius, 1. c., i. 543 — 622,
and Supplement, pp. 28 — 31.

7. THE ACTS OF JOHN. With the Acts of Andrew Eusebius
couples1 certain Acts (npdqsiq) of the Apostle John, he also places
them among the heretical works forbidden by the Church. Other
writers say that both the Acts of John and the Acts of Andrew
were in use among the Gnostices, Manichaeans, and Priscillianists 2.
Very probably the writer is identical with the author of the Acts
of Peter (see p. 98), perhaps of those of Andrew (see p. 103).
They are surely of Gnostic origin, and are as old as the second
century; for Clement of Alexandria cites them3. Their original
text has been lost, but the substance of their contents has reached
us through later Catholic recensions of the Johannine Legend.
The principal subject of these Acts seems to have been the journey
of John into Asia (Minor) and the miracles performed by him at
Ephesus. They pass lightly over his (three years') exile in Patmos,
are very diffuse as to the Apostle's second sojourn at Ephesus, and close
with the story of the peaceful death of their hero. We really have little
information about the Gnostic Acts of John. In the Acts of the Second
Council of Nicaea (787) are preserved three genuine fragments of
their original text. One of them refers to a portrait of St. John,
and was quoted by the iconoclastic synod of Constantinople (754)
against the veneration of images. The other two were quoted at the
above mentioned Council of Nicaea as proof of the heretical origin

1 Hist, eccl., iii. 25, 6.

2 Epiph., Haer. 47, I. Philastr., De haeres., c. 88. Aug., Contra adv. legis et
prophet., i. 20, 39. Turib., Ep. ad Idac. et Cepon., c. 5.

3 Adumbr. in I lo. i. I.

IO6 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

and character of the Acts of John, the source of the pretended apo
stolic testimony. These latter excerpts are met with in a still longer
fragment, first published by James under the title: « Wonderful Nar
ration (diy-pjfftQ $ai>naaTYj) of the deeds and visions which the holy
John the Theologian saw through our Lord Jesus Christ ». It sets
forth with insistency, and in a tasteless way, the doctrine of a merely
docetic body in Jesus Christ. Other lengthy fragments may be attribut
ed, with more or less probability, to the Gnostic Acts of St. Andrew,
especially a narration of the death (^rdoraotc,) of the Apostle. It is
extant in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and other languages.

Collections of the fragments of the Gnostic Acts of John were made
by ThilOy in a programme of the University of Halle 1847. Cf. Zahn, Acta
Joannis, Erlangen, 1880, pp. 219 — 252 (LX — CLXXII) ; Bonnet, in Acta apost.
apocr., edd. Lipsius et Bonnet (1898), ii. i, 151 — 216. The fragment men
tioned is edited by James in his Apocrypha Anecdota, 2. series, pp. i — 25 \
cf. ix — xxviii. The greater part of the Acta Joannis in Zahn is taken up
with a new edition of the Greek narrative of the deeds of the Apostle
John, current under the name of Prochorus (cf. the canonical Acts, vi. 5),
composed probably in the first half of the fifth century. For two Latin
recensions of the Johannine legend that are much closer a kin to the
Gnostic Acts than the Greek text is, see Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostel-
geschichten , i. 408 — 431. In his Monarchianische Prologe zu den vier
Evangelien, Leipzig, 1896, pp. 73 — 91 (Texte und Untersuchungen, xv. i),
P. Corssen has constructed out of the writings of Jerome, Augustine, and
others an Historia ecclesiastica de Johanne apostolo et evangelista, which he
claims was current in the third century. It probably never existed, at least
in the proposed shape. On the Acts of John in general cf. Zahn 1. c.,
Einleitung, pp. m — CLXXII; Lipsius 1. c., i. 348 — 542, and Supplement,
pp. 25 — 28, also Zahn, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. (1899), x. 191 — 218.

8. THE ACTS OF THOMAS. The Acts (xpd&iq) of the Apostle Thomas
have been handed down in a better text and a more complete condition
than any of the other Gnostic legendary histories of the Apostles. It is
true that the original text is lost, but two of the Catholic recensions,
in Greek and Syriac, date from a very early period, and present a
relatively clear vision of the Gnostic framework common to all. The
Syriac text was published by Wright in 1871, the Greek by Bonnet
in 1883. The principal difference between them consists in the larger
number of Gnostic features that have faded from the Syriac, but
have been preserved in the Greek. The theme of the Acts is
the missionary preaching of St. Thomas in India. The Greek text
is divided into twelve Acts (npdSstQ) that are followed by the
martyrdom, while the Syriac has but eight Acts and the martyr
dom ; the contents are substantially identical, however, as Acts 7 — 8
in the Syriac correspond to Acts 8 — 12 in the Greek text. They are
filled with many kinds of odd and vulgar miracles, and aim mostly
at dissuading their readers from all sexual intercourse. Von Gut-
schmid has shown that the narrative contains both legendary and

§ 3°- APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. IO/

historical traits. The Indian king Gundaphorus, for whom, in the
second Act, Thomas builds a palace in heaven, is the Indo-Parthian
king Gondophares, of the first century of the Christian era, otherwise
known only by coins and inscriptions. The hypothesis of von Gut-
schmid that the entire Thomas-Legend is only a story of Buddhistic
missionary preaching, worked over in a Christian sense, still remains
a pure conjecture. Some poetical pieces scattered through the nar
rative deserve attention, notably an Ode to Sophia, said to have been
sung by Thomas in Hebrew (i. e. Aramaic) at Andrapolis on the
occasion of the wedding of the king's daugther (Bonnet, 8 ff.); also
two solemn prayers said to have been uttered by Thomas when
baptizing and wrhen celebrating the Holy Eucharist (Bonnet, 20 36);
finally a beautiful, but often very enigmatic and rather irrelevant, hymn
on the fate of the soul. The latter is found only in the Syriac text
(Wright , 274 ff.). All these poetical compositions are decidedly
Gnostic in character, and were doubtlessly written in Syriac, perhaps
by Bardesanes. It seems, therefore, certain that the Acts were not
originally composed in Greek but in Syriac, and in the first half of
the third century at Edessa, by some disciple of Bardesanes. We
know already (see p. 87) from Ephraem Syrus (cf. § 28, 3) that the
followers of Bardesanes were wont to circulate apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles. The Thomas-Legend, therefore, found its readers in those
circles which loved to read the Acts of Andrew and the Acts of John,
i. e. among Gnostics, Manichaeans, and Priscillianists1.

The Syriac text of the Acts was published with an English translation
by Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, i. 171 — 333; ii. 146 — 298.
The Greek text was edited by Bonnet , Supplementum codicis apocryphi,
i. i — 95. Some fragments of the Greek text were first edited by Thilo,
Acta S. Thomae apostoli, Leipzig, 1823. A larger number appeared in
Tischendorf , Acta apost. apocr., pp. 190 — 242, and in Apocalypses apocr.,
pp. 156 — 161. In Rhein. Museum fur Philologie, new series (1864), xix.
161 — 183 (Kleine Schriften von A. v. Gutschmid, Leipzig, 1890, ii. 332 — 364)
A. von Gutschmid discussed the facts of Indian history that are referred to in
the Thomas-Legend. On King Gondophares in particular, cf. A. von Sallet,
Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grofien in Baktrien und Indien , Berlin,
1879, PP- T57 — Z66. On the metrical pieces in the Acts cf. K. Macke, in
Theol. Quartalschr. (1874), Ivi. i — 70. A separate edition of the Hymn
on the Soul was prepared by A. A. Bevan, Cambridge, 1897, and printed in
Texts and Studies, v. 3. M. Bonnet, Le poeme de 1'ame, version grecque
remaniee par Nicetas de Thessalonique , in Analecta Bollandiana (1901),
xx. 159 — 164. For the Acts in general cf. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostel-
geschichten, i. 225 — 347, and Supplement, pp. 23 — 25, also Harnack,
Gesch. der altchristl. Literattir, ii. i, 545 — 549. Later recensions of the
Legend are treated by Lipsius 1. c., i. 240 ff. Bonnet (1. c.) re-edited two
later Latin forms of the Legend: De miraculis B. Thomae apostoli (pp. 96
to 132), very probably by Gregory of Tours, and Passio S. Thomae apostoli

1 Epiph., Haer., 47, I ; 61, I ; Aug., Contra Faustum, xxii. 79, w\& passim. Turib.,
Ep. ad Idac. et Cepon, c. 5.

IOS FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

(pp. 133 — 1 60). For a later Greek recension cf. James, Apocrypha anec-
dota, 2. series, pp. 27 — 45, and pp. xxxn — XLIV. Bonnet brought out the
definitive edition : Acta Philippi et Acta Thomae, accedunt Acta Barnabae,
etc., ed. M. Bonnet, Leipzig, 1903 (Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius et
Bonnet, ii. 2). A. Mandni, Per la critica degli «Acta apocrypha Thomae»,
in Atti della R. Accad. di scienze di Torino (1904), xxxix. 11 — 13.

9. THE ACTS OF PHILIP. The Acts of Philip are very seldom men
tioned in antiquity. We meet them for the first time in the so-called
Gelesian Decretal De recipiendis et non recipiendis libris under the title
Actus nomine Philippi apostoli apocryphi. Of the original fifteen Acts
of the Greek text faepiodot fttXiitnoo TOV dTtoaroXou) we possess only
fragments, the first nine and the fifteenth Act. The latter contains the
martyrdom of the Apostle. The description they offer of the missionary
travels of the Apostle is very obscure and confused. In the second
Act, Philip reaches the «city of the Athenians called Hellas »; in the
third Act he goes from Athens to Parthia, thence into the land of the
«Candacii» and to Azotus. In the fifth, sixth, and seventh Acts we find
him again in Hellas at Nicatera. In the eighth Act he goes to the
land of the serpent-worshippers fsiQ ryv '/wpav TWV Vy>tava)vj, i. e. to
Hierapolis in Phrygia, where, in the fifteenth Act, he meets with
death. There is in these Acts a confusion of the Apostle Philip with
Philip the Deacon. The imaginary journey to the land of the Can-
dacii, and the action of the Apostle at Azotus, are based on an ignorant
misinterpretation of the canonical Acts (viii. 27, Queen Candace) and
the sojourn of the Apostle Philip at Azotus (Acts viii. 40). A Syriac
legend concerning the doings of the Apostle Philip distorts still more
gravely the truth of these chapters, when it makes the Apostle preach
in «the City of Carthage that is in Azotus ». In the opinion of Lipsius
we have in the Greek text of these Acts a Catholic revision of a lost
Gnostic original composed during the third century. Zahn holds them
to be original compositions, made, at the earliest, about the end of
the fourth century.

The Greek text of the second and the fifteenth Acts of Philip are in
Tischendorf, Acta apost. apocr., pp. 75 — 104. The first Act and the Acts 3 — 9
were edited by P. Batiffol, in Analecta Bollandiana (1890), ix. 204 — 249.
In his Apocalypses apocr., pp. 141 — 156, Tischendorf published two later
Greek recensions of the fifteenth Act (the martyrdom). Cf. James , Apo
crypha anecdota, pp. 158—163. For the Syriac text of the Acts of Philip
cf. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, i. 73 — 99; ii. 69 — 92. In
general cf. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, ii. 2, i — 53; and
Supplement, pp. 64 — 73 94 260. H. O. Stolten and Lipsius, in Jahrbiicher
fiir prot. Theol. (1891), xvii. 149 — 160 459 — 473. Zahn, Forschungen
zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1900), vi. 18 — 24.

10. THE ACTS OF MATTHEW. Of these Acts only the conclusion
or martyrdom-narrative has reached us. At Myrne, the city of the
Anthropophagi, Matthew closed his glorious career in the service of

§ 30- APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the Gospel by a martyrdom of fire, at the order of King Fulbanus.
During the martyrdom, and after the death of the Apostle, astounding
miracles took place that shook the obstinacy even of the king, who
was converted and became a bishop. Apparently, the narrative is
only a fragment; Lipsius deems it the remnant of an old Gnostic
tale concerning Matthew, revised in the third century by Catholics.
However, both the date and the Gnostic origin of the legend are still
doubtful. No ecclesiastical writer of antiquity mentions these Acts.

For the Greek text of the Martyrium of Matthew cf. Tischcndorf, Acta
apost. apocr., pp. 167 — 189. Bonnet has added an ancient Latin recension,
in Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius et Bonnet (1898), ii. i, 217—262. In
general cf. Lipsms , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten , ii. 2, 109 — 141,
and Supplement, p. 76.

1 1 . THE LEGEND OF THADD^US. The famous Thaddaeus-Legend
is deserving of mention, though its hero, Thaddaeus or Addaeus, was
originally held to be one of the 70 or 72 disciples (Luke x. i) and
only at a later date was confounded with the Apostle (Judas) Thad
daeus. The earliest form of the Legend appears in Eusebius l, who
avers that he found it in the archives of Edessa2. Some of the do
cuments in these archives he copied word for word, and translated
from Syriac into Greek3. They were the correspondence between
Abgar, toparch of Edessa, and Jesus, together with an account of
the mission of Thaddaeus to Edessa. In his Letter to Jesus, Abgar
(Abgar V. Ukkama, or «the Black» ca. 13 — 50) begs the Lord to
visit him in Edessa and cure his illness. But the Lord refuses, since
He must accomplish His work in Palestine and ascend thence to
Heaven. After that event, however, He will send one of His disciples
who will free Abgar from his illness.

The narrative goes on to relate that, after the Ascension of the
Lord, «Judas who was also called Thomas», sent Thaddaeus, one of
the seventy, to Edessa. Thaddaeus cured the king and many other
sick persons, and began to preach the Gospel to the people of
Edessa. In 1876 a lengthy Syriac narrative was given to the public in
which there was question of the conversion of Edessa to the Christian
faith. It claims to have been composed by a certain Labubna and
is entitled « Doctrine of the Apostle Addaeus». Almost contempor
aneously an Armenian version of the Syriac original was published. In
this work the documents cited by Eusebius re-appear in almost verbal
agreement, the only difference being some minor additions. According
to the newly discovered work the answer of the Lord to Abgar was not
given in writing, but orally. Moreover, before mentioning the mission
to Edessa of Addaeus, one of the Seventy- Two, this work interpolates
a short account of the portrait of Christ said to have been painted

1 Hist eccl., i. 13. 2 Ib., i. 13, 5; cf. ii. i, 6. 8.

3 Ib., i. 13, 5 22.

IIO FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

by Ananias, the messenger of Abgar. Finally, there is added a
lengthy narrative of the missionary preaching of Addaeus in Edessa.
The short Greek Acts of Thaddaeus, certainly not written before
the fifth century, insert Thaddseus or Lebbaeus (one of the Twelve),
instead of Thaddseus or Addaeus (one of the Seventy or Seventy-
Two). It is not true, as Zahn (1881) contended, that the Doctrina
Addaei represents the complete text of the Acta Edessena quoted
by Eusebius. It is rather a later enlargement and improvement of
that legend. According to Tixeront (1888), in its present form it
cannot be earlier than 390 — 430. At the same time, it is not pos
sible to fix more exactly the date of the Acta Edessena. Lipsius
believes that the legend of the correspondence between Abgar and
Jesus arose about the time of the first known Christian king of Edessa,
Abgar VIII. (Bar Manu), ca. 176 — 213. There is no doubt of the
non-authenticity of the correspondence. A sufficient refutation of its
claims is the statement of St. Augustine that genuine Letters of
Christ would have surely been most highly esteemed from the be
ginning in the Church of Christ l. It was the contrary that happened,
for this very correspondence was declared apocryphal in the so-called
Gelasian Decretal De recip. et non recip. libris 2.

W. Cureton published extensive fragments of the Syriac Doctrina Addaei,
in Ancient Syriac Documents, London, 1864, pp. 5 (6) — 23. Later G. Phil
lips edited the complete text : The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle, London,
1876. Editions of the Armenian version appeared, 1868, at Venice and at
Jerusalem. For the Armenian version cf. A. Carriere, La legende d'Abgar
dans Fhistoire d' Armenia de Mo'ise de Khoren, Paris, 1895. For the Greek
ActaThaddaei cf. Tischendorf, Acta apost. apocr., pp. 261 — 265, and Lipsius,
Acta apost. apocr., edd. Lipsius and Bonnet, i, 273 — 278; Acta Thaddaei, in
Giornale Arcadico iv. (1901), vol. vii, 55 — 63. R. A. Lipsius, Die edesse-
nische Abgarsage kritisch untersucht, Braunschweig, 1880. Id., Die apo-
kryphen Apostelgeschichten, ii. 2, 178 — 200; Supplement, pp. 105 — 108.
Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, Erlangen,
1881, i. 350 — 382. W. A. Wright, Abgar, in Diet, of Christian Biogr.,
London, 1877, i. 5 — 7. K. C. A. Matthes, Die edessenische Abgarsage auf
ihre Fortbildung untersucht (Dissert, inaug ), Leipzig, 1882. L.J. Tixeront,
Les origines de 1'eglise d'fidesse et la legende d'Abgar, Paris, 1888.
A. Buffa, La legende d'Abgar et les origines de 1'eglise d'Edesse (These),
Geneva, 1893. J. Nirschl, Der Briefvvechsel des Konigs Abgar von Edessa
mit Jesus in Jerusalem oder die Abgarfrage , in Katholik (1896), ii. 17 if.
97 ff. 193 ff. 322 ff. 398 ff. E. v. Dobschntz, Christusbilder, Leipzig, 1899
(Texte und Untersuchungen, xviii, new series, iii), pp. 102 ff. 158 ff. 29 ff.
Id., in Zeitschr. ftir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1900), xliii. 422 — 486.

§ 31. Apocryphal Letters of the Apostles.

I. THE LETTER TO THE LAODICEANS. The reference of St. Paul
(Col. iv. 1 6) to an epistle written by him to the Laodiceans has

1 Contra Faust. Man. xviii, 4; cf. De cons, evang., i. 7, ii ff.

2 Epistola Jesu ad Abgarum regem apocrypha, Epistola Abgari ad Jesum apocrypha.

§ 31. APOCRYPHAL LETTERS OF THE APOSTLES. Ill

been variously interpreted in the past. It furnished the occasion for
the forgery of a so-called Epistle of St. Paul, Ad Laodicenses, which
from the sixth to the fifteenth century found welcome in many Latin
biblical manuscripts. The Latin text exhibits a very inelegant and
obscure diction and seems to be a translation from the Greek, although
all the other texts of the Epistle discovered up to the present are
derived from the Latin. This curious little Letter is entirely com
posed of words and phrases excerpted from the genuine Epistles of
St. Paul, and impresses the reader as a very childish and harmless
composition, without the slightest trace of heretical doctrine. The
first certain mention of it is in a quotation from a work falsely
attributed to St. Augustine, composed, however, very probably, in
the fifth century J. Possibly it is the same as the Epistola ad Laodi
censes mentioned by St. Jerome 2, in which case our Epistle would
date from the fourth century at least. An Epistola ad Laudicenses,
mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment as a forgery in the interest of
Marcion, was probably the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians revised by
Marcion for the purpose of his teaching, and entitled Ad Laodicenos 3.

Cf. R. Anger , Uber den Laodicenerbrief (Beitrage zur hist.-krit. Ein-
leitung in das Alte und Neue Testament, i), Leipzig, 1843. J. B. Light-
foot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 2. ed., London,
1876, pp. 281 — 300. Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892),
ii. 2, 566 — 585. Anger, Lightfoot and Zahn exhibit also new recensions of
the text. Anger makes known (pp. 166 if.) two Old-German and two Old-
English versions, also one Old-Bohemian version, and a re-translation from
the Latin into the Greek. Lightfoot gives two Old-English translations into
Greek. Carra de Vaux published an Arabic translation, in the Revue
Biblique (1896), v. 221 — 226.

2. THE LETTER TO THE ALEXANDRINES. In the Muratorian Fragment
the title of the last mentioned document is followed by that of a pseudo-
Pauline and Marcionite Epistle Ad Alexandrines. We have no other
knowledge of this Letter which some have erroneously supposed to be the
canonical Epistle to the Hebrews. A lesson of the seventh-century Sacra-
mentarium et Lectionarium Bobbiense, entitled Epistola Pauli apostoli
ad Colos., would be, in the opinion of Zahn, a fragment of the Epistola
ad Alexandrines. But his hypothesis is over-bold, and very questionable.

Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 586 — 592. Harnack,
Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 33.

3. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PAUL AND THE CORINTHIANS.
In the Syriac biblical manuscripts of the fourth century the two canonical
Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians were followed by a third. A letter
of the presbyters of Corinth to Paul served as an introduction to this
latter Epistle. In his commentary on the Pauline Epistles Ephraem

1 Liber de divinis scripturis (ed. Weihrich, p. 516).

- De viris illustr., c. 5. 3 Tert., Adv. Marc., v. ii, 17.

112 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

Syrus treats this third Epistle, with its introductory note, as quite equal
in authority to the genuine ones. In the fifth century it was translated
from Syriac into Armenian and into Latin, and for centuries held its
place in the biblical manuscripts of the Armenian Church. One Armenian
and two Latin versions are extant; the Syriac text has not yet been
discovered. Zahn and Vetter conjectured that the Syrian text must
have been a translation or a recension of a Greek text that was itself
only a part of the apocryphal Acta Pauli ; their conjecture was destined
to be borne out by the discovery mentioned in § 30, 3. The contents
of the correspondence are as follows : Stephen and his co-presbyters
at Corinth make known to Paul that two men, Simon and Cleobius,
had been preaching at Corinth false doctrines; they denied the divine
creation of the world and of man, the divine mission of the prophets,
the virginal birth of Jesus, and the resurrection of the body. Their
deceitful and perilous discourses had shaken severely the faith of
some Christians. In the Armenian text (but not in the Latin) there
is here inserted a document by which it appears that Paul was a
prisoner at Philippi when he received the letter of the Corinthians,
and that he was greatly troubled thereby. In his reply he insists
again and urgently on the doctrine which he had always preached to
the Corinthians, more particularly on that of the resurrection of the
body. The idea of such a correspondence seems to have been
suggested by I Cor. vii. I and v. 9.

On the subject of this correspondence there are two exhaustive mono
graphs: W. Fr. Rinck, Das Sendschreiben der Korinther an den Apostel
Paulus und das dritte Sendschreiben Pauli an die Korinther, Heidelberg,
1823, and P. Vetter, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief, Vienna, 1894.
Rinck made a German translation of the Letters from eight Armenian
manuscripts, and pursued at great length the history of their diffusion and
of their use, in the strange hope of proving them to be genuine. Vetter
gives a literary-historical introduction to the problem and presents a new
edition of all hitherto known texts ; he also makes some additions to them.
The Armenian text (with a German version, in Vetter) pp. 39 — 57) was first
published in 1715 by D. Wilkins. Of the two Latin translations one
(Vetter, pp. 58 — 64) was edited by S. Berger (1891), and the other Better,
pp. 64 — 69) by E. Bratke (1892). Vetter gives (pp. 70 — 79) a German
version of the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus (in Old- Armenian) on these
Epistles; the original Syriac has been lost. Cf. Zahn, Gesch. des neutesta-
mentl. Kanons, ii. 2, 592 — 611, 1016 — 1019; Vetter, in Theol. Quartalschr.
(1895), Ixxvii. 622 — 633; A. Berendts, in Abhandlungen Al. von Ottingen
gewidmet, Miinchen, 1898, pp. i — 28.

4. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PAUL AND SENECA. There
is extant in Latin a Correspondence between Paul and Seneca, made
up of eight short Letters of the Roman philosopher L. Annaeus Seneca
(f 65) and six, mostly still shorter, replies of the Apostle. They
are remarkable for poverty of thought and content, rude diction and
unpolished style. Seneca admires (Ep. i. 7) the Epistles of Paul, but

§ 32- APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES. 113

is offended at the antithesis between their noble contents and the
wretched style (Ep. 7) ; he advises him to pay more attention to
expression and to acquire a better Latin diction (Ep. 13; cf. Ep. 9).
This correspondence is first mentioned by Jerome 1 and probably
was not extant before the fourth century. There is no foundation
for the hypothesis that the correspondence mentioned by Jerome has
disappeared, while the extant Letters are mediaeval fiction ; the Latin
text is original, not a translation. It is possible that the author
desired to popularize among the higher classes of Roman nobility a
broader view of the Epistles of St. Paul. The legend of Seneca's
conversion to Christianity, on which this correspondence is based,
owes its origin to the ethico-theistic character of the Stoic philosopher's
writings.

This correspondence is found in many editions of the works of Seneca,
notably in the stereotyped edition of his prose-writings by Fr. Haase,
Leipzig, 1852 — 1853; 1893 — 1895, iii. 476 — 481 ; L. A. Senecae opera quae
supersunt. Supplementum, ed. Fr. Haase, Leipzig, 1902. Separate editions
of the correspondence were brought out by Fr. X. Kraus , in Theol.
Quartalschr. (1867), xlix. 603—624, and E. Westerburg, Der Ursprung der
Sage, daft Seneca Christ gewesen sei, Berlin, 1881, pp. 37 — 50. For a
criticism and commentary on the Letters cf. J. Kreyher, L. Annaus Seneca,
Berlin, 1887, pp. 170 — 184; Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, ii. 2,
612 — 621. On the relations of Seneca to Christianity cf. IV. Ribbeck, L. Annaus
Seneca, der Philosoph, Hannover, 1887; Light foot, Epistle to the Philippians,
London, 1890: St. Paul and Seneca, pp. 271 — 333; J. R. Mozley, in Diet,
of Chr. Biogr., London, 1887, Seneca, p. 610. M. Baumgarten , Lucius
Annaus Seneca, Rostock, 1895 ; L. Friedlander, Der Philosoph Seneca, in
Histor. Zeitschr. (1900), Ixxxv. 193 — 249.

§ 32. Apocryphal Apocalypses.

i. THE APOCALYPSE OF PETER. The eighth century-manuscript
to which we owe the fragment of the Gospel of Peter (§ 29, 5) has
preserved also a long fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter. It
begins in the middle of a speech of the Lord and relates at length
a number of visions. Two departed brothers, clothed in celestial
glory, appear upon a mountain to the Twelve Apostles. The narrator,
one of the Apostles, who speaks of himself in the first person, is
permitted to behold a glimpse of heaven, «a very great space
outside this world ». Directly opposite heaven, but hidden from
the gaze of the narrator, is the place of punishment for sinners;
the description of the tortures endured there, depicted in glowing
colours, takes up the remainder of the narrative. Although the narrator
does not name himself, it is clear from intrinsic evidence that he wishes
to be recognized as the prince of the Apostles. The identification of
the work is made through a quotation from it in Clement of Alexandria.
He introduces part of a passage (verse 26) with the words: nirpoQ

1 De viris illustr., c. 12.
BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 8

114 FIRST PERIOD. THIRD SECTION.

iv rrt d7iOxaA6</>£i (pycri1. In many places during the earlier centuries,
even in ecclesiastical circles, this work enjoyed great popularity.
Not only is it often quoted by Clement of Alexandria, but in his
Hypotyposes he judged it worthy of a commentary 2. In the Muratorian
Fragment (according to the traditional and well-founded exposition
of the text) this Apocalypse is held to be canonical, although it is
admitted that some Christians do not share that opinion (quam quidam ex
nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt). Though Eusebius 3 and Jerome4 rejected
it as non-canonical, it continued to be read on Good Friday in some
of the churches of Palestine as late as the middle of the fifth
century 5. It was probably composed in the first half of the second
century; the place of its origin cannot be determined. It has some
points of contact with the Second Epistle of Peter ; hence it is sup
posed that pseudo-Peter had it before him, and that he drew from
it the impulse to pose in the person of the prince of the Apostles.
Antique-heathen ideas of Hades are traceable in its descriptions of
the pains of hell, particularly Orphic -Pythagorean traditions. But
their presence in the author's mind is probably explained by the use
of Judaistic literary sources, and not of heathen works.

This fragment was published in 1892. The most important editions,
translations, and recensions of it are quoted in § 29, 5. Cf. besides
A. Dieterich, Nekyia, Beitrage zur Erklarung der neuentdeckten Petrus-
apokalypse, Leipzig, 1893; Harnack , in Texte und Untersuchungen, etc.
(1895), xiii. i, 71 — 73. As far as we can now judge, there is no relation
between this ancient Greek apocalypse and the Apocalypsis Petri per
Clementem (containing explanations alleged to have been given by St. Peter
to St. Clement of Rome about revelations alleged to have been made by
Christ to Peter himself), preserved in Arabic and Ethiopic manuscripts, a
miscellaneous collection scarcely older than the eighth century ; cf. E. Bratke,
in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1893), i. 454 — 493. There is an
English translation of the latter by Andrew Rutherford, in Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), ix. 145 — 147.

2. THE APOCALYPSE OF PAUL. In contents the Apocalypse of Paul
is close a kin to the Apocalypse of Peter. On the other hand, it has
reached us complete, not only in the original Greek, but in a series of
translations and recensions. There exists, however, no reliable edition
of this work, and there is yet uncertainty as to the mutual relations
of the texts that have reached us. Very probably it will be found
that the Latin translation, first published by James in 1893, is a much
truer witness to the original than the Greek text published in 1866
by Tischendorf. Important service is rendered to the critical study
of the Greek text by an ancient Syriac version. In this Apocalypse
we are introduced to the mysteries that Paul beheld when he ascended
to the third Heaven, «and was caught up into Paradise and heard

1 Eclog. proph., c. 41. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 14, i. 3 Ib., iii. 3, 2; 25, 4.
4 De viris illustr., c. i. 5 Sozom., Hist, eccl., vii. 19.

§ 32. APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES. 115

secret words which it is not granted to man to utter » (2 Cor. xii. 2 ff.).
It pretends to be the work of Paul, but not to be destined for the
general public. It opens with a brief statement to the effect that
in the days of Theodosius, and by the direction of an angel, the
work had been discovered beneath the house in which Paul lived
while at Tarsus. Through the Prefect of the city this book was
delivered to the emperor, and by him either the original or a copy
was sent to Jerusalem. In the company of an angel, Paul leaves
this world, beholds on his way the departure of the souls of the
just and the sinful, and arrives at the place of the just souls, in the
shining land of promise, on the shore of the Acherusian Lake, out
of which the City of God arises. Thence he is led to the place of
the godless and beholds the manifold sufferings of the damned.
Finally he is allowed to visit Paradise, where Adam and Eve had
committed the first sin. The narrative exhibits a fertile imagination,
and considerable power of invention. It cannot be shown that it is
in any way dependent on the Apocalypse of Peter. The work itself
suggests that it was composed in or about the time of Theodosius
(379 — 395)> and in or near Jerusalem. Traces of it first appear in the
Tractates or Homilies of St. Augustine on the Gospel of John (98, 8)
delivered about 416, and in the Church History of Sozomen (vii. 19)
written about 440. St. Augustine judges with severity the deception
practised by the writer, but Sozomen is witness that in other circles,
especially among the monks, the work met with approval. During
the Middle Ages its popularity was great, as is seen from the many
versions preserved: Latin, German, French, and English.

The Greek, or rather a Greek text was published by C. Tischendorf,
in Apocalypses apocryphae, Leipzig, 1866, pp. 34 — 69 (cf. pp. xiv — xvm).
He used two late manuscripts, one of which was a copy of the other. The
ancient Latin version was edited from an eighth-century manuscript, by
James, Apocrypha anecdota, Cambridge, 1893, pp. i — 42. The ancient
Syriac versions have reached us only in translation of the same. An English
translation was printed by J. Perkins, in Journal of the American Oriental
Society (1866), viii. 183 — 212. Cf. Andrew Rutherford, in Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), ix. 151—166. From another manuscript P. Zingerle
published a German translation, in Vierteljahrsschrift fiir deutsch- und englisch-
theologische Forschung und Kritik (1871), iv. 139 — 183. For later Latin and
German recensions cf. H. Brandes, Visio S. Pauli, ein Beitrag zur Visions-
literatur, mit einem deutschen und zwei lateinischen Texten, Halle, 1885.
He has also treated of French and English translations, in Englische Studien
(1884), vii. 34 — 65. For Slavonic texts, manuscripts and printed works cf.
Bonwetsch , in Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 910 f. - - The
Apocalypse of Paul is to be carefully distinguished from the 'AvafiaTix&v
HauXou, or Ascension of Paul, a second- or third-century work mentioned
only by Epiphanius (Haer., 38, 2). Like the former it claims to contain the
unspeakable words of 2 Cor. xii. 2 if. But it was replete with abominable
things (dppTjToopfCac IjinXecov) and was used exclusively by Cainites and
« Gnostics ». The so-called Decretum Gelasii de recip. et non recip. libris
mentions in connection with this Apocalypse two others of which we know

Il6 FIRST PERIOD. FOURTH SECTION.

nothing more: Revelatio quae appellatur Thomae apocrypha; Revelatio quae
appellatur Stephani apocrypha (Thiel , Epist. Rom. Pont., Brunsberg, 1868,
i. 465). The so-called Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books mentions
Zor/aptoo a~oxak>^. The so-called Stichometria of St. Nicephorus also makes
mention of an apocryphal work Za/apiou Tratpoc 'Icoavvou. Berendts is of
opinion that in both places there is question of a work on the father of
John the Baptist, written in Palestine in the third or fourth century, for
the purpose of explaining the words of our Lord concerning the blood
of Zachary, the son of Barachias (Mt. xxiii. 35; cf. Luke xi. 51). Cf.
A. Berendts, Studien iiber Zacharias-Apokryphen und Zacharias-Legenden,
Leipzig, 1895. Under the first of these titles we may probably recognize
a spurious Apocalypse current under the name of the prophet Zachary.
P. Macler , L' Apocalypse arabe de Daniel, publiee, traduite et annotee,
Paris, 1004.

FOURTH SECTION.

THE ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE OF THE SECOND

CENTURY.

§ 33. Anti-Gnostics. Their lost works.

1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. Against the heresies indicated in the
preceding pages, the representatives of the Church undertook to de
monstrate that she alone was in exclusive possession of the truth and
that only her teachings were justifiable. The doctrines most directly
threatened or imperilled were naturally those defended with the greatest
warmth ; thus in the conflict with Gnosticism the belief in the unity of
God because at once the most important of the ecclesiastical doctrines.
At the same time the sources and criteria of the teachings of the Church
were naturally a matter of discussion. The anti-heretical was therefore
destined to greatly surpass the apologetic literature as a propaedeutic,
and a foundation for theology or the science of faith. The anti-
Gnostic writings of the apologists Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Melito,
and Theophilus of Antioch have been lost; indeed, that has been
the general fate of the greater part of the anti-Gnostic literature.

2. AGRIPPA CASTOR. A writer of this name, otherwise unknown
work to us, wrote during the reign of Hadrian (117 — 138) a polemical
against Basilides. Eusebius makes mention of it and praises it highly1.

For the «testimonia antiquorum» cf. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, 2. ed.,
Oxford, 1846—1848, i. 83—90 (Migne, PG., v. 1269—1272).

3. HEGESIPPUS. We possess more copious remains of the « Me
morabilia » of Hegesippus. He was an Oriental, born in Syria or in
Palestine and of Jewish origin, according to Eusebius2; at least he
was acquainted with Aramaic. An interest in the true Christian
teaching (b opDoQ MYOQ) led him to the West, and as far as Rome,

1 Hist, eccl., iv. 7, 6 — 8; Hieron., De viris illustr., c. 21.

2 Hist, eccl., iv. 22, 8.

§ 33- ANTI-GNOSTICS. THEIR LOST WORKS. I I/

where, from his own words (though there is a dispute as to their
proper translation), we learn with certainty l that he sojourned under
Pope Anicetus (about 155 — 166) and even survived the reign of Pope
Eleutherus (about 174 — 189). On his return to his native land he
wrote five books that Eusebius sometimes calls xivre auffpdfjLOLTa.
(1. c. iv. 8, 2) and again Trsyre itTtofjLvfjp.aTa (1. c. iv. 22, I ; cf. ii. 23, 3).
The latter title is used by Hegesippus himself (ii. 23, 8). Though
the fragments in Eusebius are mostly historical in character, it does not
seem possible to reconcile his excerpts with the judgment of Jerome2,
according to wrhich the work of Hegesippus resembled a history of
the Church. It must have been more like a polemical treatise against
Gnosticism, with the purpose of setting forth the evidence of eccle
siastical tradition , particularly its close dependency on the uninter
rupted episcopal succession. Indeed, Eusebius places the venerable
Oriental first among the orthodox opponents of the new Gnostic
heresy, and adds that he had set up a memorial in the simplest
form to the pure tradition of the Apostolic preaching (frnXouardrfl
ffuvrdsst fpcuprfi) 3. Short fragments of Hegesippus are found also
in Philippus Sidetes and Stephen Gobarus.

For the last traces of the complete text of the Memorabilia cf. Th. Zahn,
Der griechische Irenaus und der ganze Hegesippus im 16. und im 17. Jahr-
hundert, in Theol. Literaturblatt, 1893, pp. 495 — 497; E. Bratke, ib. 1894,
pp. 65 — 67. The fragments extant are found in Routh, 1. c., i. 203 — 284;
Migne, 1. c., v. 1307 — 1328; A. Hilgenfeld, Hegesippus, in Zeitschr. fur
wissenschaftl. Theol. (1876), xix. 177 — 229; Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur
Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1900), vi. 228 — 273. For the hypo
thesis of Lightfoot that the Papal catalogue in Epiphanius (Haer.-, 27, 6)
is taken from the work of Hegesippus, see Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Ab-
handlungen und Untersuchungen (1897), i. 373 — 390; Zahn, 1. c., pp. 243
to 246; y. Flamion, in Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique (1900), i. 672 — 678-,
y. Chapman, in Revue Benedictine (1901), xviii. 410 — 417; (1902), xix.
13—30, 144—170 (for Lightfoot). — Th. Jess, Hegesippos nach seiner kirchen-
geschichtlichen Bedeutung, in Zeitschr. fur die histor. Theol. (1865), xxxv.
3—95. K. F. Nosgen, Der kirchliche Standpunkt Hegesipps, in Zeitschr.
fur Kirchengesch. (1877 — 1878), ii. 193 — 233. A. Hilgenfeld, Hegesippus
und die Apostelgeschichte , in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1878),
xxi. 297 — 330. H. Dannreuther , Du temoignage d'Hege'sippe sur 1'eglise
chretienne aux deux premiers siecles, Nancy, 1878. H. S. Laivlor, Two
notes on Eusebius, in Hermathena (1900), xi. 10 — 49.

4. RHODON. During the reign of Commodus (180 — 192) this writer,
born in Asia Minor and subsequently a disciple of Tatian at Rome,
developed an apparently manifold literary activity. He wrote a work
against the sect of Marcion, and a Commentary on the Hexaemeron
(etQ TTjv k$afjfjL£poy faofjivyfjiaj, perhaps against Apelles (§ 25, 7) 4. In
his work against Marcion, from which Eusebius has quoted interesting

1 Ib., iv. 22, 2—3. 2 De viris illustr., c. 22.

3 Hist, eccl., iv. 8, i — 2. 4 Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 13.

Il8 FIRST PERIOD. FOURTH SECTION.

paragraphs, Rhodon made known his intention to write a reply to the
« Problems » of Tatian, under the title 7ipo^^p.drco^ ixducreiQ. Jerome
has wrongly 1 attributed to him an anonymous work against the Mon-
tanists (§ 35, 2) mentioned in Eusebius.

Routh, 1. c., i. 435—446 (Migne, 1. c., v. 1331 — 1338).

5. PHILIPPUS OF GORTYNA, MODESTUS, MUSANUS. To the same
period belong Philippus, bishop of Gortyna in Crete, who wrote
against Marcion 2, Modestus who exposed the same errors with special
skill 3, and Musanus who addressed a very grave Letter to some brethren
who had apostatized to the sect of the Encratites *. At a later date
other writings circulated under the name of Modestus5.

6. HERACLITUS AND OTHERS. In evidence of the industry of « eccle
siastical men» at the end of the second century Eusebius 6 mentions
«the work of Heraclitus on the Apo^lle (Paul), and that of Maximus
on the origin of evil and the creation of matter, questions much dis
cussed by heretics, the work of Candidus on the Hexaemeron and
that of Apion on the same subject, also a work of Sextus on the
resurrection, and a work of Arabianus on another subject». Jerome
made some additions to this passage of Eusebius7.

The mention of Maximus as a Christian writer must be an error \ else
where (Praep. evang., vii. 22) Eusebius quotes a lengthy passage from
the supposed work of Maximus: Routh, 1. c., ii. 75 — 121; Migne, 1. c., v.
1337 — 1356. The whole paragraph appears, word for word, in the work
of St. Methodius of Olympus on free will : Bonwetsch , Methodius von
Olympus, Schriften, 1891, i. 15 — 38. Probably Eusebius was misled into
attributing the work of St. Methodius to an older, real or imaginary,
writer named Maximus. Cf. Th. Zahn , in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch.
(1887—1888), ix. 224—229. y. A. Robinson, The Philocalia of Origen,
Cambridge, 1893, pp. XL — XLIX.

§ 34. Irenaeus of Lyons.

I. HIS LIFE. Irenseus was born in Asia Minor, about 140, in
or near Smyrna, it is supposed. He was wont to repeat8 that he
listened, as a child, to the discourses of Poly carp, the aged bishop
of Smyrna. He is said, on later evidence, to have been at Rome
when Polycarp died (Febr. 23., 155). He was certainly a presbyter
of the Church of Lyons during the persecution of its members by
Marcus Aurelius. On that occasion the clergy of Lyons and Vienne,
most of whom were in prison, sent Irenseus (177 — 178) to Pope Eleu-
therus at Rome, with a letter that treated of the Montanist troubles,
and in which they styled Irenaeus «one who was zealous for the

1 De viris illustr., cc. 37, 39.

2 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 25; cf. iv. 21, 23, 5. 3 Ib., iv. 25; cf. 21.
4 Ib., iv. 28; cf. 21. 5 Hieron., De viris illustr., c. 32.

6 Hist, eccl., v. 27. 7 De viris illustr., cc. 46 — 51.

8 Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 20, 5 ; Iren., Adv. haer., iii. 3, 4, ed. Massuet.

§ 34- IRENAEUS OF LYONS. I IQ

Testament of Christ » 1. On his return he was made bishop of Lyons
in succession to the martyred Pothinus, and as such devoted his
energies mainly to the overthrow of the false Gnosis. During the
reign of Pope Victor I. (189 — 198/199) he took a leading part in
the discussions that arose about the Easter celebration, « doing
honour to his name (Elpyvaws) and bearing himself as a peacemaker
(slpyvoTtoifaz)* i says Eusebius2. The date of his death is unknown.
According to a tradition first met with in Jerome3 he suffered
martyrdom under Septimius Severus (193 — 211).

Ch. E. Freppel, St. Irenee, Paris, 1861 ; 3. ed. 1886. H. Ziegler, Irenaus,
der Bischof von Lyon, Berlin, 1871. R, A. Lipsius, Die Zeit des Irenaus
vonLyon, in Histor. Zeitschr. (1872), xxviii. 241 — 295. A. Gouilloud, St. Irenee
et son temps, Lyon, 1876. E. Montet , La legende d'Irenee et 1'intro-
duction du christianisme a Lyon, Geneve, 1880. J?. A. Lipsius, Irenaeus, in
Diet, of Christ. Biogr., London, 1882, iii. 253 — 279. Zahn, Forschungen
zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1891), iv. 249 — 283; (1900),
vi. 27 — 40. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur (1897), ii. i, 320 — 333.

2. THE « AD VERSUS HAERESES». The most important legacy of
Irenaeus is an extensive work against Gnosticism, entitled « Detection
and Overthrow of the pretended but false Gnosis » fs^ey/OQ xal
dvarpoKT] TTJQ (^eodoj^ofjLO'j yvajoza)^) , usually known as «Adversus
Haereses» 4. It is unfortunate that we no longer possess the ori
ginal Greek of this work, which has been handed down, however,
in a Latin translation that was executed shortly after the composi
tion of the original, and exhibits a most conscientious fidelity, even
a slavish literalness. Fragments of the Greek text, notably the
greater part of the first book, have reached us through citations
from it made by later writers, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and
others. There are also some short fragments preserved in a Syriac
translation. According to the introduction to the first book the
work was begun at the request of a friend, probably a bishop, who
wished to know more about the heresy of Valentine, with a view
to its refutation. In the execution of his enterprise the plan seems to
have grown larger as the author advanced; it is also supposed that
a considerable period of time elapsed between the composition of
the first book and the completion of the fifth. We have no means
of fixing more definitely the periods of composition of the separate
books of this work; in the third book (iii. 3, 3) Eleutherus is designated
as the contemporary bishop of Rome (about 174 — 189). Methodical
disposition of the material, consecutiveness of thought, and pro
gressive exposition are to a great extent wanting in the «Adversus
Haereses». The first book is mostly taken up with the «detection»

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 4, 2. 2 Ib., v. 24, 18.

3 Comm. in Is. ad 64, 4 ff.

4 Hieron., De vir. illustr., c. 35, after Eus., Hist, eccl., ii. 13, 5; iii. 28, 6: Ttpbq
raq aipdastg.

I2O FIRST PERIOD. FOURTH SECTION.

or exposure of the Gnostic doctrines; the other four are devoted to
their « refutation ». In the second book dialectico-philosophical ar
guments predominate, while in the third it is principally ecclesiastical
tradition and the Holy Scripture that the author invokes. The main
scope of the work is to disprove the Gnostic thesis that the Creator
of the world is another than the Supreme God ; this teaching is ex
pressly declared (ii. i, i) to be the blasphemous foundation of all
Gnosis. The fourth book rounds out the scriptural proofs, confirming
with the sayings of the Lord (per Domini sermones, iv. praef.) the
previous teaching of the Apostles (sententia apostolorum). Among
the sayings of the Lord are understood also the words of the prophets
(cf. iv. 2, 3). The fifth book is eschatological in character. The
doctrine of the resurrection ot the body is variously defended, and
at the end (cc. 32 — 36) are developed the Chiliastic theories peculiar
to Irenaeus. His description of the Gnostic systems is based almost
entirely on his own reading of their writings (§ 25, 3). He is also
well-acquainted with such other ecclesiastical writers as Ignatius,
Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Hegesippus.

For the latest traces of the Greek text of the «Adversus haereses» cf.
the study of Zahn (§ 33, 3). Fr. Loofs, Die Handschriften der lateinischen
Ubersetzung des Irenaus und ihre Kapitelteilung, in Kirchengesch. Studien,
H. Renter zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, Leipzig, 1888, pp. i — 93, se
parately printed, Leipzig, 1890. G. Mercati, Di alcuni miovi sussidii per
la critica del testo di S. Cipriano, Rome, 1899, pp. 100 — 107. Id., Note
di litterature biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi, v.), Rome, 1901,
pp. 241 — 243. The following editions are based on an independent study
of the manuscripts: D. Erasmus, Basle, 1526; Fr. Feuardent , Cologne,
1596 (reprinted in 1639); ?• E- Grabe, Oxford, 1702; R. Massuet, Paris,
1710 (reprinted Venice, 1734); A. Stieren, Leipzig, 1848 — 1853; W. W.
Harvey , Cambridge, 1857. It is admitted that by far the best edition
is that of Massuet, reprinted in Migne, PG., vii (1857). Some new frag
ments of the Greek text were published by A. Papadopulos-Kerameus , in
'AvaXexra fepoaoXufMTixrjc aTa^uoXo-yi'ac, St. Petersburg, 1891, i. 387 — 389; cf.
y. Haussleiter , in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (1893 — 1894), xiv. 69 — 73.
For the Syriac and Armenian fragments see Harvey 1. c., ii. 431 — 453,
and P. Martin, in Pitra , Analecta Sacra, Paris, 1883, iv. 17 sq. 292 ft.
There is a German translation by H. Hayd, in Bibliothek der Kirchen-
vater, Kempten, 1872 — 1873. There is an English translation of the
writings of Irenaeus by Roberts and Rambaut , in Ante-Nicene Fathers
(Am. ed. 1885), i. 315—578.

3. THE « AD VERSUS HAERESES» CONTINUED. For Irenaeus the
source and standard of faith is the self-identical apostolic tradition that
is continuous in the Church. The unbroken succession of the bishops,
the representatives of the ecclesiastical magisterium in the churches
founded by the Apostles, guarantees and proves the apostolicity of
the doctrine taught in these churches; the Apostles appointed as
their successors only «very perfect and blameless men», and these
in turn handed down to their successors the doctrine of the Apostles

§ 34- IREN.EUS OF LYONS. 121

pure and undefiled *. As it would be too tedious to enumerate
in such a work the official succession of all the churches (omnium
ecclesiarum enumerare successions), he holds it sufficient to prove
that «the greatest and the oldest church, the one well-known to all
men, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious
Apostles Peter and Paul», can trace back the list of its bishops to
the days of the Apostles ; its teaching can, therefore, rightly lay claim
to the character of apostolicity : «Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter
potentiorem (potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire
ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab
his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio»
(III. 3, 2). These words may be rightly translated as follows: «With
this church, because of its higher rank, every church must agree,
i. e. the faithful of all places, in which (in communion with which)
the apostolic tradition has been always preserved by the (faithful) of
all places «. Heretics wrongly maintained that the Jesus born of
Mary was another than the Christ who descended from Heaven.
« Otherwise, Matthew could well have said (i. 18): 'The generation
of Jesus wras in this wise.' Foreseeing, however, the perverters of
faith and forestalling their deceit, the Holy Spirit said through Matthew
(Spiritus Sanctus per Matthaeum ait) : 'the generation of Christ was
in this wise (i. 18), and they shall call his name Emmanuel' (i. 22 f),
that we might not consider him a mere man, and believe that he
was another than the Christ, but rather know that He is one and the
same» (iii. 16, 2). He must be God and Man in the same person,
«for if it were not a man who had overcome the opponent of man
kind, the enemy would not have been vanquished in the right way
fdcxaiajQj. And again, if it were not God who gave to us our sal
vation, it would not have been firmly assured to us (flsjSatWQ, iii. 18, /)».
«The Word of God became man in order that man, taking on the
Word and receiving the Sonship, might be the Son of God» (iii. 19, i ;
the text is somewhat uncertain). Irenseus, like Justin2, recognizes that
the Virgin Mother also has her place in the work of salvation. «As Eve,
the wife of one man (Adam), though herself yet a virgin, was through
her disobedience the cause of death to herself and the entire human
race, so Mary, the wife of one man (foreordained for her), and yet
herself a virgin, was through her obedience the source of salvation
(causa salutis) for herself and the whole human race» (iii. 22, 4).
«If the former had been disobedient to God, the latter was persuaded
to obey Him, that the Virgin Mary might be the advocate (advocata)
of the Virgin Eve. And as the human race fell into the slavery of
death through a virgin, so should it be saved by a virgin ; the balance
is made even \vhen virginal obedience is weighed against virginal
disobedience (v. 19, i).

1 Adv. haer., iii. 3, i. 2 Dial. c. Tryph., c. 100.

122 FIRST PERIOD. FOURTH SECTION.

V. Courdaveaux, St. Irenee, in Revue de 1'hist. des religions (1890), xxi.
149 — 175. F. Cabrol, La doctrine de St. Irene'e et la critique de M. Cour
daveaux, Paris and Lyons, 1891. J. Kunze, Die Gotteslehre des Irenaus
(Dissert, inaug.), Leipzig, 1891. L. Duncker, Des hi. Irenaus Christologie,
im Zusammenhange mit dessen theologischen und anthropologischen Grund-
lehren dargestellt, Gottingen, 1843. G. Molwitz, De dcvaxs^oXawoaewc in
Irenaei theologia potestate (Dissert, inaug.), Dresden, 1874. E. Klebba,
Die Anthropologie des hi. Irenaus, Miinster, 1894 (Kirchengesch. Studien,
ii. 3). H. Hagemann, Die romische Kirche ... in den ersten drei Jahr-
hunderten, Freiburg, 1864, pp. 598 — 627: « Irenaus iiber den Primat der
romischen Kirche. » Acta et decreta ss. concil. recent. Collectio Lacensis,
Freiburg, 1873, iv. v — xxxiv: S. Irenaei de ecclesiae Romanae principatu
testimonium. Cf. ^4d. Harnack, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuft. Akad.
der Wissensch., Berlin, 1893, pp. 939 — 955; J. Chapman, in Revue Bene
dictine (1895), xii. 49 — 64; Funk, in Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und
Untersuchungen (1897), i. i — 23-, L. Hopfenmiiller , S. Irenaeus de Eucharistia
(Dissert, inaug.), Bamberg, 1867; J. Koerber, S. Irenaeus de gratia sancti-
ficante (Dissert, inaug.), Wiirzburg, 1865 ; L. Atzberger, Gesch. der christl.
Eschatologie innerhalb der vornican. Zeit, Freiburg, 1896, pp. 219 — 263;
J. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenaus, Leipzig, 1889 (Texte und Unter
suchungen, etc., vi. 2); Gry, Le millenarisme dans ses origines et son
developpement, Paris, 1904.

4. OTHER WRITINGS. Irenaeus wrote many other works that have
perished, with the exception of a few insignificant fragments. He
says (Adv. haer. i. 27, 4; Hi. 12, 12) that he intended to write a
special refutation of Marcion; we do not know whether he carried
out his intention. To the Roman priest Florinus, who leaned toward
the teachings of Valentine, he addressed a work on the Monarchy (of
God), or to the effect that God is not the author of evil (its pi /lovap/taQ
7] Kepi TOO fj.7) elvai rbv $zbv 7iotY]TT^ xaxojvj. Later, when Florinus
had abandoned the Church, Irenaeus wrote a treatise «On the
Ogdoad» (ntp\ dydoddoQJ, probably on the Valentinian cycle of yEons.
Eusebius quotes a passage from each of these works *. We gather
from a Syriac fragment that Irenaeus wrote to Pope Victor entreating
him to withstand Florinus and to suppress his writings. Irenaeus
also wrote to the same Pope apropos of the Paschal celebration,
likewise to «many other heads of churches » 2. From one such letter
Eusebius made a lengthy excerpt 3. It was perhaps the same question
that he treated in a letter «On Schism » (mpt a^iffp.aTOQ) written
to Blastus, a Roman Quartodeciman 4. Eusebius mentions 5 a brief
work of Irenaeus against the heathens, entitled: xpbc, "EXtyvaq XO^OQ
nep\ inter f/fjiyc, eTT^e^oa^syog, which Jerome incorrectly reads 6 : Con
tra gentes volumen breve et de disciplina aliud. Eusebius gives
also the titles of some other works : a demonstration of the apostolic
preaching (elq eTtidetgw TOO dxociTohxoo vqpUffjLa'Coq), and «a book
of miscellaneous discourses)) (fttftAlov rt dta^i^ecov diaybpwv), probably

1 Hist, eccl., v. 20. 2 Ib., v. 24, 18. 3 Ib., v. 24, n ff.

4 Ib., v. 20, I. 5 Ib., v. 26. c De viris illustr., c. 35.

§ 35- ANTI-MONT ANISTS. 123

a collection of homilies. Maximus Confessor quotes * some phrases
from a work of St. Irenaeus on faith (nepi TrlffrsajQ X6fot). Little
credit is to be given to the inscription of a Syriac fragment pur
porting to be the work of «St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, (taken)
from his exposition of the first (chapter?) of the Canticle of Canticles ».
The four Greek fragments, known from their editor, Chr. M. PfafT
(1714), as the Pfaffian Fragments, were until quite lately an object of
erudite dissension. Harnack has proved them to be forgeries of PfarT.

The fragments of other writings are found in the already cited editions
of Adversus haereses , e. g. in Massuet, Paris, 1710, pp. 339 — 348; Migne,
PG., vii. 1225 — 1264; Stieren , i. 821 — 897; Harvey, ii. 454 — 511. Cf.
Pitra, Analecta Sacra, Paris, 1884, ii. 194 — 210. The Syriac and Armenian
fragments are in Harvey, ii. 454 — 469, and somewhat increased in Martin-
Pitra, 1. c. , iv. 26 ff. 299 ff. ; cf. Preuschen , in Harnack, Gesch. der
altchristl. Literatur, i. 266 ff. ; Harnack, 1. c., ii. i, 518 ff. For the fragments
of the letter or letters to Pope St. Victor, see Zahn, 1. c., iv. 283 — 308.
The question of the Pfaffian Fragments is treated by Harnack, in Texte
und Untersuchungen, xx, new series (1900), v. 3, i — 69. Cf. P. Batiffol,
in Bulletin de litte'rature ecclesiast. (1901), ii. 189 — 200.

§ 35. Anti-Montanists.

1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. The most prominent element in the
controversy between the Montanists and the Catholics were the ec
static discourses of the prophets of Montanism. These ecstasies,
whether in the shape of swoonings or _delirium, were put forward
by the Montanists as evidence of the purity and truth of their re
velations. The Catholics denounced them as deceitful signs of pseudo-
prophecy 2. We have already mentioned the anti-Montanist letters
of Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and the work of the apologist
Miltiades (§ 19, i 2). The statement of the author of Praedestinatus
(i. 26; cf. 86) that Pope Soter (f ca. 174) wrote a book against the
Montanists, is subject to caution.

2. THE ANONYMOUS OF 192/193. We have to regret the loss of
a polemical work against Montanism from which Eusebius made se
veral excerpts 3. Its three books included not only a refutation of
the Montanist teaching, but also detailed information concerning the
history of the Montanist prophets. From internal data it must have
been published not later than the early part of 193. The author was
a priest of Asia Minor; his name is not given by Eusebius. Jerome 4 has
too hastily identified him with the anti-Gnostic Rhodon (§ 33, 4).

The Eusebian fragments of the « Anonymous » are in Routh, Reliquiae
Sacrae (2. ed.), ii. 181 — 217; also in Migne, PG., x. 145 — 156. Cf. G. N.
Bonwetsch, Die Geschichte des Montanismus, Erlangen, 1881, pp. 27 — 29;
Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1893),
v. 13—21.

1 Migne, PG., xci. 276. - Tertull., Adv. Marc., iv. 22.

8 Hist, eccl., v. 16 17. 4 De viris illustr., cc. 37. 39.

124 FIRST PERIOD. FOURTH SECTION.

3. APOLLONIUS. The anti-Montanist work of the « ecclesiastical
writer » Apollonius was another important historical authority used by
Eusebius in his description of the Phrygian heresy t. This work
of Apollonius was very probably written in 197, and contained ab
undant historical material. Apollonius was also a native of Asia
Minor, and is said in Praedestinatus (i. 26 27 86) to have been
bishop of Ephesus.

The Eusebian fragments are collected in Rottth , 1. c., i. 463 — 485;
Mignc , 1. c., v. 1381 — 1386. Cf. Bonwetsch , 1. c., 29 ff. ; Zahn, 1. c., v.

21—28.

4. CAIUS. In the reign of Pope Zephyrin (199 — 217) the Roman
Caius, an « ecclesiastical » and «very learned » man2 published a
polemical dialogue against the Montanist Proclus. Eusebius gathered
a few phrases from it for his history3. In 1888, J. Gwynn published,
with a commentary, some new fragments of this dialogue taken from
the «Capitula» of St. Hippolytus against Caius. In this work Hippo-
lytus defended the Apocalypse of St. John against Caius who had
declared in his dialogue that it was the work of Cerinthus. The
information concerning Caius found in Photius4, when not based on
Eusebius, is untrustworthy; he confounds Caius with Hippolytus or
rather with the author of the »Philosophoumena».

The Caius fragments are collected in Routh, 1. c., ii. 123 — 158; Migne,
1. c., x. 25 — 36. For the fragments of the «Capitula» of Hippolytus against
Caius cf. § 54, 3. For Cains consult especially Zahn, Gesch. des neu-
testamentl. Kanons, etc., ii. 985 — 991. G. Salmon, in Diet, of Christian
Biogr., London, 1877, i. 384 — 386.

5. AN UNKNOWN WRITER. Epiphanius knew and used an ancient
work that criticized very severely the prophecy of the Montanists,
especially their ecstatic utterances5. Voigt believed that this was a
work by Rhodon ; RolfTs held it to have been written by Hippolytus.
Both opinions are subject to grave objections.

H. G. Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontanistischen Kampfes.
Die Berichte des Epiphanius liber die Kataphryger und Quintillianer unter-
sucht, Leipzig, 1891. E. Rolffs, Urkunden aus dem antimontanistischen
Kampfe des Abendlandes, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1895, xii.
99 ff. 122 ff.

§ 36. Writings of Ecclesiastical Authorities and Synods, chiefly concerning
Heresies and Schisms.

I. WRITINGS OF POPES. Pope Soter (ca. 166—174) wrote a
Letter to the Christians of Corinth in the name of the Roman com
munity (§ 8, 2 3); he is also said to have written a work against

1 Hist, eccl., v. 18. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., ii. 25, 6; vi. 20, 3.

3 Ib., vi. 20; ii. 25, 6—7; iii. 28, i — 2, 31, 4. 4 Bibl. Cod. 48.

5 Haer., 48, 1 — 13.

§ 36. WRITINGS OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES AND SYNODS. 125

the Montanists (§35, i). The Roman bishop who, according to
Tertullian *, gave letters of communion to the Montanist communities
in Asia Minor, but soon withdrew them, was either Pope Eleutherus
(ca. 174 — 189; cf. § 34, i) or his successor, Pope Victor I. (189 to
198/199). During the great controversy concerning the time of
the Easter celebration, Pope Victor wrote several Encyclical Letters,
it is supposed to all the churches ; among them were a Letter which
urged the holding of synods for the settling of these troubles2, a
Letter in promulgation of the decision of a Roman synod 3, and a
Letter which excluded the refractory churches of Asia Minor from
ecclesiastical communion on the ground that their stubborn retention
of the Quartodeciman custom proclaimed them heretics *. Victor was
a native of Roman Africa, and according to St. Jerome 5 wrote some
theological treatises in Latin (mediocria de religione volumina 6j.
For this reason he is reckoned by St. Jerome the first of the Latin
ecclesiastical writers. According to Optatus of Mileve Pope Zephyrin
(199 — 217), wrote a work against heretics7.

For the «testimonia» concerning Pope Victor, cf. Caspar i, Quellen zur
Gesch. des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, Christiania, 1875, iii. 413 f.
432 ff . ; Harnack, Der pseudocyprianische Traktat De aleatoribus, in Texte
und Untersuchungen , Leipzig, 1888, v. i, no ff. For the tractate De
aleatoribus that Harnack adjudicated to Pope Victor, cf. § 51, 6 g. J. Turmel,
L'£glise romaine jusqu'au pape Victor, in Revue catholique des figlises,
1905, 3—21.

2. DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth and con
temporary of Pope Soter (see p. 123), was highly esteemed in his time,
and his judgment sought for by many churches in matters of contro
versy. There was extant in the days of Eusebius a collection of
his seven « Catholic » Letters written to as many communities, together
with a private letter of Dionysius8. The last of these « Catholic »
Letters was written in grateful response to a letter of the Roman
community; Eusebius has preserved for us four interesting and valuable
passages 9. He says also 10 that the Letter to the Nicomedians was
directed against the heresy of Marcion. Apropos of the Letter to
the community of Cnossus in Crete, Eusebius tells us n of a reply
to Dionysius, written by Pinytus, bishop of Cnossus. What Jerome
relates 12 about Dionysius and Pinytus is taken from Eusebius.

Cf. Routh , Reliquiae Sacrae (2. ed.), i. 175 — 201: BB. Dionysius et
Pinytus.

1 Adv. Prax., c. i. 2 Polycrates, in Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 24, 8.

3 Eus., 1. c., v. 23, 3. 4 Ib., v. 24, 9.

5 De viris illustr., c. 53 ; cf. c. 34.

6 Hier., Chron. ad a. Abr. 2209.

7 De schism. Donat., i. 9. 8 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 23.

9 Ib., iv. 23, 10—12; ii. 25, 8. 10 Ib., iv. 23, 4. ll Ib., iv. 23, 7—8.

12 De viris illustr., cc. 27 — 28.

126 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

3. SERAPION OFANTIOCH. Serapion, bishop of Antioch (199 — 211),
wrote many Letters, the addresses of some of which are made known
to us by Eusebius *, e. g. one to a certain Domninus, who had fallen
away from the Christian faith during a persecution and become a
Jew ; another to Pontius and Caricus against Montanism 2, also a Letter
to the Christians of Rhossus warning them not to read the Gospel
of Peter (§ 29, 5).

Cf. Routh, 1. c., i. 447 — 462; Migne, PG., v. 1371 — 1376. For other
details concerning Serapion see de Buck , in Acta SS. Oct. (xm), Paris,
1883, pp. 248—252.

4. SYNODICAL WRITINGS IN THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. As
a result of the Encyclical Letter of Pope Victor I. (see p. 125)
synods were held in several places, to discuss the celebration of
Easter, and the decisions of the Fathers were communicated to the
Pope. Eusebius gives a list of such synods, and quotes some frag
ments from their writings3.

These fragments are two passages from the Letter which a synod ot
Asia Minor sent to the Pope through Polycrates of Ephesus in justification
of the Quartodeciman practice (cf. Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 24, 2 — 8; iii. 31, 3;
Hier., De viris illustr., c. 45), and the conclusion of a Letter sent to the
Pope by a synod of Palestine that was presided over by Theophilus,
bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. It decided for the
Western (Roman) practice (cf. Eus., 1. c., v. 25; Hier., 1. c., c. 43). The
latter fragment is in Routh., 1. c., ii. i — 7; Migne,, 1. c., v. 1365 — 1372;
for the other two see Routh, ii. 9—36; Migne, v. 1355 — 1362. The
Letter of Bacchyllus, bishop of Corinth, was a private missive (cf. Eus.,
1. c., v. 23, 4), erroneously stated by Jerome (1. c. , c. 44) to have been
a synodical writing.

FIFTH SECTION.

ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE DURING THE GENESIS
OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER I.

THE ORIENTALS.
§ 37. General Considerations.

Since the end of the second century the need of a scientific
treatment of the teaching of the Church was felt with increasing
force. History, exegesis, and philosophy put forward their claims as
auxiliaries of Christian truth. Ecclesiastical literature thus entered
upon new lines of development; new aims and new paths were
opened up. The older apologists and anti-heretical writers had created
a literature of defence and attack; henceforth there was to be,
within the Church herself, a peaceful growth of literary activity. This

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 12; cf. Hier on., De viris illustr., c. 41.

2 Hist, eccl., v. 19. 3 Ib., v. 23—25.

§ 38. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.

scientific tendency was liveliest in the Christian East where the
catechetical school of Alexandria soon became known as a famous
centre and nursery of ecclesiastical science. Its origin is shrouded
in obscurity. About 180, it appears in full operation, but as an
institution long-since established *. It was probably at first only a
school for catechumens , but when Pantaenus took charge of it,
about 1 80, it must have already acquired the character of a Chris
tian academy in which all Greek science was studied and made
to do apologetic service in favour of the Christian cause. Under
Clement and Origen it reached the acme of its renown that however
began to fade in the fourth century. The devotion to scientific labours
now spread from Alexandria to Palestine. Alexander, a disciple of
the catechists Pantaenus and Clement, began, as bishop of Jeru
salem, a theological library in the Holy City itself2. A little later,
about 233, when Origen sought a new home in Palestine, he opened
a school at Caesarea in which the scientific element was even more
strongly emphasized than at Alexandria. In the second half of the
same century the learned presbyter Pamphilus laboured actively at
Caesarea for the academical interests of the Church. He is usually
credited with having founded there the famous library that was so
serviceable to Eusebius and Jerome ; there can be no doubt, however,
that the beginnings of this most valuable of all the ancient Christian
libraries were owing to Origen 3. The Christian masters of Alex
andria extended their vigorous and efficient influence as far as Asia
Minor. Of the two most important ecclesiastical writers that we
meet there in the third century, Gregory Thaumaturgus was a
disciple of Origen, bred in his school at Caesarea , while Methodius
of Olympus made it his life-work to oppose the theology of that
master.

H. E. F. Guerike , De schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica,
Halle, 1824 — 1825, i — ii. C. F. W, Hasselbach, De schola quae Alexandriae
floruit catechetica, Stettin, 1826 — 1839, i — n- Ch> Bigg '> The Christian
Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886. F. Lehmann, Die Katechetenschule
zu Alexandria kritisch beleuchtet, Leipzig, 1896 (of small value). A. Ehr-
hard , Die griechische Patriarchalbibliothek von Jerusalem , in Rom.
Quartalschr. fiir christl. Altertumskunde und fur Kirchengesch. (1891), v.
217—265 329—331 383—384; (1892), vi. 339—365-

A. THE ALEXANDRINES.
§ 38. Clement of Alexandria.

I . HIS LIFE. Titus Flavius Clemens was born about 1 50, probably
at Athens 4, it is supposed of heathen parents. After his conversion
to Christianity he travelled extensively through Southern Italy, Syria

1 £c &p%aiou £$oy?, Etts., Hist, eccl., v. 10, i. 2 Ib., vi. 20, I.

3 Hieron., De viris illustr., c. 113. 4 Epiph., Haer., 32, 6.

128 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

and Palestine, finally through Egypt, seeking everywhere the society
and instruction of Christian teachers l. At Alexandria he fell
under the spell of the catechist Pantaenus. As a result, he took
up his permanent residence in that city, apparently a little before
1 80, and became a presbyter of that church2. Since about 190 he
was the associate and assistant of Pantsenus in the \vork of the
school; after the death of the latter, about 200, he took up the
head-mastership of the same 3. As early as 202 or 203 he was
obliged to quit Alexandria because of the persecution that broke
out under Septimius Severus. We meet him , about 2 1 1 , in Asia
Minor in the company of his former disciple Alexander, the future
bishop of Jerusalem 4. A letter of Alexander to Origen, written in
215 or 216, speaks of Clement as a father gone to his rest5.

y. H. Reinkens, De Clemente presbytero alexandrine, homine, scriptore,
philosophic, theologo liber, Breslau, 1851. E. Freppel , Clement d'Alex-
andrie, Paris, 1865; 3. ed. Paris, 1886. B. F. Westcott, Clement of Alex
andria, in Diet, of Christ. Biogr., London, 1877, i. 559 — 567. F. Bohringer,
Die griechischen Vater des 3. und 4. Jahrhunderts. i. Clemens und Ori-
genes (Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, i. 2, i, 2. ed.), Zurich, 1869.
Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1884),
iii. 156 — 176.

2. CLEMENT AS A WRITER. He is an epoch-making figure in the
history of the growth of early Christian literature. He differs from
his teachers inasmuch as they had confined themselves to oral in
struction, while he added thereto the use of the written page as
an academical means of forming the minds of his pupils 6. His
purpose is the scientific establishment of the teachings of the
Church; he is desirous of furnishing it with a good basis of philo
sophy and of reconciling it with contemporary thought. The source
of his frequent slips and errors is to be found in the fact that he
is better equipped to appreciate the ideal content of Christian truth
than to expound the positive theology of redemption. To the cause
of Christianity, which he espoused with a generous zeal, he brought
a highly gifted nature and an encyclopedic knowledge. Clement
is well-acquainted with the profane writers of Greece, and particularly
with the works of Plato. Much of the earlier ecclesiastical literature
was also well-known to him. His diction is relatively pure, and his
exposition « flowery and exuberant and very agreeable » 7. Of the
extensive « Introduction to Christianity » to which he devoted many
years of his life, nearly all has been preserved (Protrepticus, Paed-
agogus, Stromata). He wrote another important work, the Hypotyposes,
of which only insignificant fragments have come down to us. Similarly,
out of a series of minor writings only one Homily has been preserved.

1 Strom., i. i, n. 2 Paed., i. 6, 37. 8 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 6.

4 Ib., vi. n, 5 — 6. 5 Ib., vi. 14, 8—9.

6 Strom., i. i, 11—14; cf. Eclog. 27. 7 Phot., Bibl. Cod. no.

§ 38. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.

The first editions of his works were brought out by P. Victorius, Flo
rence, 1550, and by Fr. Sylburg , Heidelberg, 1592. The best and most
complete edition is that of J. Potter, Oxford, 1715 (Venice, 1757), 2 voll.,
often reprinted, e. g. by Fr. Oberthiir, Wiirzburg, 1778 — 1779, 3 voll.;
£. Klotz, Leipzig, 1831—1834, 4 voll.; Migne, PG., viii— ix. 1857. The
edition of TV. Dindorf, Oxford, 1869, 4 voll., failed to meet the reasonable
expectations of many. Cf. P. de Lagarde, in Gotting. gelehrte Anzeigen,
1870, pp. 801 — 824, and Id., Symmikta, Gottingen, 1877, pp. 10 — 24.
Valuable contributions to these editions of Clement are found in Zahn,
Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, etc. (1884), iii: Supple-
mentum Clementinum. O. Staehlin , Observationes criticae in Clementem
Alexandrinum (Dissert, inaug.), Erlangen, 1890. Id., Beitrage zur Kenntnis
der Handschriften des Glemens Alexandrinus (Progr.), Niirnberg, 1895.
Id., Untersuchungen liber die Scholien zu Clemens Alex. (Progr.), Niirn
berg, 1897. Preuschen, in Harnack , Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i.
296 — 327. O. Staehlin, Zur handschriftlichen Uberlieferung des Clemens
Alex., Leipzig, 1901 (Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, v. 4).

3. PROTREPTICUS. PAEDAGOGUS. STROMATA. These three treatises
are parts of a complete whole 1 designed to act as a graduated or
progressive introduction to Christianity. The first part or « Exhortation
to the Heathen » (npoTpsirTixoQ xpbc, °EXX^vaq) is closely related, in
form and contents, to the earlier apologetic literature of the second
century. It opens with an eloquent invitation to listen no more to
the mythical chants about the gods of heathendom, but to the new
song of which the Logos that went forth from Sion is at once singer
and theme (c. i). Thereupon it exposes the folly and worthlessness
of the heathen religious beliefs and practices (cc. 2 — 7), and praises
the truth made known by the prophets (cc. 8 — 12). The three
books of the Paedagogus (iratdaftofogj are meant as a training in the
new Christian life for the reader who has already turned away from
heathenism2. The first book treats of the educational purpose of the
Logos, of the children (^aidsq) to be educated, and of the educational
method, a combination of love and mildness with wrathful and puni
tive justice. The other two books contain detailed instruction con
cerning food and drink, dwellings and furniture, feasts and amuse
ments, sleep and recreation, the relations of the sexes, dress and
ornament, and the like. Apart from a few chapters, especially
at the beginning and close of the third book, the text does not rise
above the level of a sprightly «causerie». It often assumes a facetious
tinge and occasionally runs over, especially in polemic, into broad
humour. In some later manuscripts two Hymns are added to the
Paedagogus, a Hymn to Jesus Christ (UJUVOQ TOO aatrr^poQ XpLaroo)
attributed to Clement and perhaps written by him, or at least added
by him to the text, and a Hymn to the Paedagogus (slq rov
natdafaiyov), by some unknown reader of the work. - - In the only
manuscript that has reached us of the third and crowning section of

1 Paed., i. i; Strom., vi. i, i. 2 Cf. Paed., i. i.

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 9

I3O FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

this introduction, it is entitled a^ocojuars^ or « Miscellanies » (strictly,
« Tapestries »). Internal evidence shows that the original title was xara
T7]v dtyd-rj <pikoao<pta.v fywa-wwy bitopvyftaTtov arpoifjLarstQ9 i. e. « Ta
pestries of scientific commentaries according to the true philosophy » *.
It was his intention to present in this work a scientific account of
the revealed truths of Christianity2. The contents however cor
respond very imperfectly to our just expectations. The Stromata
are ever relapsing into the propaedeutic tone of the Protrepticus and
the Paedagogus, or entering upon lines of apologetic discourse, or
taking up questions of practical morality; thus they repeatedly put
off the treatment of the theme announced in their opening para
graph. The first book deals chiefly with the importance of philo
sophy and its utility for Christian knowledge. In the second book
the author insists strongly on the superiority of revealed truth to
all the works of human reason. In the third and fourth books he
calls attention to two practical criteria that differentiate, in striking-
contrast, the Catholic from the heretical Gnosis - - they are the
striving for moral perfection visible in virginal and married chastity,
and the love of God as made manifest in martyrdom. The fifth
'book returns to the relations of the true Gnosis and faith, deals
with the symbolical presentation of the truths of religion, and enu
merates the elements of truth borrowed by the Hellenic from the
so-called barbarian (Jewish and Christian) philosophy. The sixth
and seventh books offer a faithful portrait of the true Gnostic; he
is the personification of all Christian perfection. Clement excuses
the lack of order and unity in the Stromata and accounts for it by
recalling to the attention of the reader the peculiar purpose of the
work3. In the preface of the fourth book he confesses that he had
hoped to finish the subject in one book, but the abundance of material
was so great (TLO Tr/^tisc TCOV Trpa^fjtdrco^) that he was carried far
beyond his original plan 4 ; yet at the end of the seventh book he
has not mastered it, and feels bound to promise other books5; he
seems, indeed, to have written an eighth book6. The above-mentioned
manuscript offers an eighth book, but it is only a small tractate,
mutilated at beginning and end, on the strictly logical process to be
followed in the search for truth. Then follow excerpts from the
writings of Theodotus and other disciples of the Oriental school of
Valentine, usually known as Excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti (§25, 5),
also selected passages from the Prophets, known as Ex scripturis pro-
pheticis eclogae (ex TOJV TcpoipTjTtx&v sx^o^aij. Zahn holds that these
three fragments are selections from the original contents of the eighth
book, while von Arnim maintains that they represent rough sketches

1 Strom., i. 29, 182; iii. 18, 1 10, al. 2 Paed , i. i; Strom., vi. I, I.

3 i. I, 18; iv. 2, 4, al. 4 iv. I, I. 5 vii. 18, ill.

6 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 13, i; Phot., Bibl. Cod. in.

§ 38- CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 13!

and preliminary studies of Clement, perhaps for the eighth book of the
Stromata ; probably, however, for other writings. The Protrepticus may
have been written before 189, the Paedagogiis about 190, the Stromata
about 200- — -202/203. Many of the numerous authors quoted by Cle
ment were very probably known to him only through anthologies.
In the acceptance and use of those Judaistic-Alexandrine forgeries
which pretend to establish the intellectual priority of the Hebrews as
compared with the Greeks, he showed himself credulous and uncritical.
Wendland is of opinion that lengthy passages of the Paedagogus
and the Stromata were borrowed from the Stoic Musonius, the teacher
of Epictetus, or at least from the lectures of Musonius as represented
by the notes of some student of that master. On the other hand
Arnobius and Theodoret of Cyrus made extensive use of the writings
of Clement.

The Protrepticus and the Paedagogus have reached us through the Arethas-
Codex (§ 13) of A. D. 914, and some copies of the same; the Stromata
through the Cod. Flor. Laurent. V 3 (saec. xi), and a copy of it. On the
plan and nature of the entire work cf. Overbeck, in Histor. Zeitschr., new
series (1882), xii. 454 ff. D. Dragomeros , KA^JXSVTOC 'AXs£avop£u>€ 6 7:90-
Tpsmxo? irpoc f'EXXT)va; 7,070;, Bucarest, 1890. O.Staehlin, Clemens Alexandri-
nus, i; Protrepticus und Paedagogus (Die griechischen christlichen Schrift-
steller), Leipzig, 1905. £. Taverni, Sopra il -aioVfor/o; di Tito Flavio Cle-
mente Alessandrino, Rome, 1885.

For a German version of the Protrepticus and Paedagogus cf. L. Hopfen-
muller and J. Wimnier, Kempten, 1875 (Bibliothek der Kirchenvater). The
first of the two Hymns at the end of the Paedagogus was published in a
carefully revised text by W. Christ and M. Paranikas , Anthologia graeca
carminum christianorum , Leipzig, 1871, pp. 37 ff. ; cf. xvm ft". For the
chronological chapter in the Stromata (i. 21, 101 — 147) cf. the classical
recension of P. de Lagarde, in Abhandlungen der k. Gesellsch. der Wissen-
schaften in Gottingen (1891), xxxvii. 73 ff. V. Hozakowski , De chrono-
graphia dementis Alexandrini (Dissert, inaug.), Minister, 1896 (see n. 9).
On the eighth book of the Stromata (Excerpta ex Theodoto, Eclogae pro-
pheticae) cf. Zahn , Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons
(1884), iii. 104 — 130; P. Ruben, Clementis Alexandrini excerpta ex Theo
doto (Dissert, inaug.), Leipzig, 1892; J. von Arnim, De octavo Clementis
Stromatorum libro (Progr.), Rostock, 1894; O. Clausen, Zur Stromateis
des Clemens Alex, und ihrem Verhaltnis zum Protrepticos und Paedagogos,
in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 465- — 512. There is an
English translation , by W. Wilson , of the writings of Clement in Ante-
Nicene Fathers (Am. ed. 1885), ii. 171 — 604. The hymns are translated by
W. Alexander. F. J. A. Hort and J. B. Mayor , Clement of Alexandria,
Miscellanies, book 7, Greek text with introduction, translation, notes,
dissertations, and indices, London, 1903; J. Bernays , Zu Aristoteles und
Clemens, 1864, reprinted in Gesammelte Abhandlungen von J. B., heraus-
gegeben von H. Usener, Berlin, 1885, i. 151 — 164; P. Wendland, Quae-
stiones Musonianae. De Musonio stoico Clementis Alexandrini aliorumque
auctore, Berlin, 1886; Id., in Beitrage zur Gesch. der griech. Philosophic
und Religion von P. W. und O. Kern, Berlin, 1895, PP- 68 ff • ; ^-* Phil°
und Clemens Alexandrinus, in Hermes (1896), xxxi. 435 — 456; Ad. Scheck,
De fontibus Clementis Alexandrini (Progr.), Augsburg, 1889; W. Christ,

132 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

Philologische Sttidien zu Clemens Alexandrinus, Miinchen, 1900 (Abhand-
lungen der kgl. bayr. Akad. der Wissensch.) ; H. Jackson, Notes on Cle
ment of Alexandria (Stromata), in Journal of philology (1902), xxvii.

I31 — 135-

A. Rohricht, De Clemente Alexandrino Arnobii in irridendo gentilium
cultu deorum auctore (Progr.), Hamburg, 1893. C. Roos, De Theodoreto
dementis et Eusebii compilatore (Dissert, inaug.), Halle, 1883. F. Schwartz,
Zu Clemens' Tfe 6 tJci>C6fievoc rXoujio;, in Hermes (1903), xxxviii. 75 — 100.

4. IIYPOTYPOSES. The work entitled oTioror.coaetc (outlines, sketches)
contained in eight books a brief commentary on the Scriptures,
including the Letter of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter. It
was interspersed with excursus of a dogmatic or historical nature 1.
There are some Greek fragments of it in Eusebius, Photius, Oecumenius,
and others, also in the so-called Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini
in epistulas canonicas. This latter text is a Latin version of the
commentary of Clement on the First Epistle of Peter, the Epistle
of Jude, First and Second of John, made by order of Cassiodorus
and cleansed of dogmatically offensive passages.

Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons, iii. 64 — 103
130 — 156; Prenschen (see n. 2), pp. 306 f.; collated with a later codex Zahris
edition of the Adumbrationes (1. c., pp. 79 — 93); G. Mercati, i: Un fram-
mento delle ipotiposi di Clemente Alessandrino ; ii: Paralipomena ambro-
siana, con alcuni appunti sulle benedizioni del cereo pasquale, in Studi e
Testi, Rome, 1904, n. 10.

5. QUIS DIVES SALVETUR. This little work (Who is the rich man
that is saved?: TIQ o (T(oC6fj.evoQ TtAotimog), highly prized even in anti
quity, is a Homily on Mk. x. 17 — 31. The Lord, says Clement, does
not intend to exclude any rich man from the kingdom of heaven;
he only commands us to mortify in spirit our attachment to the goods
of this earth and to make good use of our possessions 2. It must have
been written shortly after the publication of the Stromata3.

The editio princeps is that of M. Ghisler , Leyden, 1623; recent se
parate editions are owing to W. Br. Lindner, Leipzig, 1861; K. Rosier,
Freiburg, 1893 (Sammlung ausgew. kirchen- und dogmengeschichtl. Quellen-
schriften, vi) ; P. M. Barnard, Cambridge, 1897 (Texts and Studies, v. 2).
Former editions were based on a Codex Vatican, (saec. xv); but Barnard
discovered the archetype of this manuscript in Codex Scorial. (saec. xi).
A German version of the Homily was made by L. Hopfenmilller, Kempten,
1875 (Bibl- der Kirchenvater). It was translated into English by P. M.
Barnard, London, 1900.

6. WORKS KNOWN ONLY FROM QUOTATIONS AND FRAGMENTS.
Clement had intended to write special works on various themes; we
do not know that he was able to execute them. Thus it was his
purpose to write on the resurrection: Trepl dvaardaetoQ^; on prophecy:

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 13, 2; 14, i; Phot., Bibl. Cod. 109.

2 Cf. Paed., ii. 3; iii. 6. 3 Cf. c. 26 and Strom., iv. i, 2—3.
4 Paed., i. 6, 47; ii. 10, 104.

§ 38. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 133

i npo<f>7)T£iaq, in defence of the inspiration of the biblical books
and in opposition to Montanism1; on the soul: nep} ^oyj/Q, against
Basilidians and Marcionites 2 ; perhaps on Genesis, or the Creation:
SIQ ryy fivzoiv^. In the Paedagogus^ he refers to a former work on
continence: xspl efxpaTeiaQ; in the Quis Dives (c. 26) to his dis
cussion on First Principles and on Theology (dpywv xai fteoXoyiac,
ssy-fYjatQj. Wendland holds that in the first passage Clement has
merely copied, and rather carelessly, the title of a work of the
Stoic Musonius. It is true, however, that he announced in the
Stromata5 a work on the dpyai and on fteoXoyia. Eusebius mentions
four other works 6 : a) on Easter (nepi TOO Tidaya), occasioned by the
homonymous work of Melito of Sardes and directed against the
Quartodecimans of Asia Minor 7 ; b) an Ecclesiastical Canon, against
Judaizers: xavcoy ixxArjma.cm.xbc, y rrpoQ robq loudat£ovra£& ; c) Homilies
on fasting and on calumny: diaMzstQ Kepi vqarsiaq xat irepl xara-
; d) an Exhortation to perseverance, or to the newly baptized:

O TrpOTpSTTTtXOQ TtpOQ 'JTtOfJLOyqV 'fj TZpOQ TOUQ VSOiffTt ftsftaTZTCff/llvOUC; 10.

Some texts of the first two are found in later writers. Barnard believ
ed (1897) that he had discovered a fragment of the fourth. -
Palladius is the first to make mention 11 of a work on the prophet
Amos: slg rov Tcpopynqv 'dfjtatQ. A work on Providence: xspl Ttpo-
voiac, is first mentioned by Maximus Confessor, Anastasius Sinaita,
and later writers.

Zahn, ]. c.; pp. 32 — 64; Preuschen, 1. c., pp. 299 — 301 308 — 311 316;
Barnard, Clement of Alex., «Quis dives salvetur», pp. 47 — 52.

7. DOCTRINE OF CLEMENT. From the initial words of the Stromata
(i. I, ii — 14) one might be tempted to believe that the whole work was
nothing more than a written elaboration of the teaching that in former
years Clement had heard from his instructors, and especially from Pan-
tsenus. It is very probable, however, that such words are only an
exaggerated expression of his own modesty and of veneration for his
earlier masters. Clement is frequently in conflict with ecclesiastical
tradition, with which he undertakes to combine elements that are
foreign to it. From Greek philosophy he borrows some far-reaching
principles, first from the Stoics, and then from Plato, frequently
through Philo/ He is of opinion that philosophy, though its elements
of truth are drawn from the Old Testament, should occupy an im
portant role in the divine plan of redemption. As the Jews were

1 Strom., i. 24, 158; iv. I, 2, al. 2 Ib., ii. 20, 113; iii. 3, 13, al.

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 13, 8; cf. Strom., iii. 14, 95; vi. 18, 168.

4 ii. 10, 94; cf. ii. 6, 52; iii. 8, 41. 5 iv. i, 2 — 3; cf. iii. 3, 13, al.

6 Cf. Hier., De viris illustr., c. 38.

7 Ens., Hist, eccl., iv. 26, 4; vi. 13, 39. 8 Ib., vi. 13, 3.
9 Ib. 10 Ib. ll Hist. Lausiaca, c. 139.

134 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

led to Christ through the Law, so should the Gentiles come to Him
through philosophy: iTiaidafwyzi yap xat atiry (q <pdoao<pia) TO 'E/J^-
MXOV, we (> wpoz TOUQ 'EftpaiouQ s?c Xpurctw 1. Only by means of philo
sophy can the Christian advance from faith to knowledge, from 7ri<mc
to fvajaiQ. Faith is, so to speak, a concise knowledge of what is
necessary: ffwro/jio^ TCOV xaTSxetfovTcov fvojm<;, while science is a strong
and assured demonstration of those truths that have been accepted
by faith: dnodet&q TCOV oca TicffTsojQ napetty/jifjieMov layupb. xat filftatoQ2.
To acquire knowledge without philosophy is like hoping to harvest
grapes without caring for the vines 3. How far Clement, under the
guidance of philosophy, had fallen away from ecclesiastical doctrine,
may be gathered from the severe judgment ofPhotius4 on \htHypo-
ty poses (§ 38, 4), a work in which Clement seems to have plunged
more deeply into speculation than in any of his extant writings.
-In some places», says Photius, «he holds firmly to the correct doc
trine ; elsewhere he is carried away by strange and impious notions.
He asserts the eternity of matter, excogitates a theory of ideas from
the words of Holy Scripture, and reduces the Son to a mere crea
ture. He relates fabulous stories of a metempsychosis and of many
worlds before Adam. Concerning the formation of Eve from Adam
he teaches things blasphemous and scurrilous , and anti-scriptural.
He imagines that the angels held intercourse with women and begot
children from them , also that the Logos did not become man in
reality but only in appearance. It even seerns that he has a fabulous
notion of two Logoi of the Father, of which the inferior one appeared
to men; indeed, not even this one.»

V. Hebert-Duperron, Essai sur la polemique et la philosophic de Clement
d'Alexandrie, Paris, 1855. J. Cognat , Clement d'Alexandrie, sa doctrine
et sa polemique, Paris, 1859. H. Preische, De -yvcosst dementis Alexandrini
(Dissert, inaug.), Jena, 1871. Knittel , Pistis und Gnosis bei Clemens von
Alexandrien, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1873), Iv. 171 — 219 363 — 417. C.
Merk, Clemens Alexandrinus in seiner Abhangigkeit von der griechischen
Philosophic (Dissert, inaug.), Leipzig, 1879. ^- de Faye, Clement d'Alex
andrie , Etude sur les rapports du Christianisme et de la philosophic
grecque an 2e siecle, Paris, 1898. H. Laemmer, dementis Alexandrini de
Xo^to doctrina, Leipzig, 1855. G. T/i. Hitten, dementis Alex, de SS. Eucha-
ristia doctrina (Dissert, inaug.), Warendorp, 1861. G. Anrich , Clemens
und Origenes als Begriinder der Lehre vom Fegfeuer (in Abhandlungen
fur H. J. Holtzmann), Tubingen, 1902. P. Ziegert , Zwei Abhandlungen
•iber T. Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus. Psychologic und Logoschristologie,
Heidelberg, 1894. V. Pascal, La foi et la raison dans Clement d'Alexandrie,
Montdidier, 1901. Funk, Clemens von Alexandrien liber Familie und
Eigentum, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1871), liii. 427—449, and in Kirchen-
geschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 45 — 60. Fr. J,
Winter , Die Ethik des Clemens von Alexandrien, in Studien zur Gesch.

1 Strom., i. 5, 28; cf. vi. 17, 159. Cf. Gal. iii. 24.

2 Strom., vii. io; 57. 3 Ib., i. 9, 43- * Bibl. Cod. 109.

§ 3$. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 135

der christl. Ethik , i, Leipzig, 1882. G. Basilakes , KXiqjAsvro? rou 'AXs;-
ocvopsoK ~<] y;ihxrj SiSajxaXta (Dissert, inaug.) , Erlangen, 1892. A'. Ernesti,
Die Ethik des Titus Flavins Clemens von Alexandrien oder die erste zu-
sammenhangende Begriindung der christlichen Sittenlehre, Paderborn, 1900.
Markgraf , Clemens von Alexandrien als asketischer Schriftsteller in seiner
Stellung zu den natiirlichen Lebensgiitern , in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch.
(1901 — 1902), xxii. 485 — 515. N. Capitaine, Die Moral des Clemens von
Alexandrien, Paderborn, 1903. W. Wagner, Der Christ und die Welt nach
Clemens von Alexandrien, ein noch unveraltetes Problem in altchristlicher
Beleuchtung, Gottingen, 1903. H. Eickhoff , Das Neue Testament des
Clemens Alexandrinus (Progr.), Schleswig, 1890. P. Dausch, Der neutesta-
mentliche Schriftkanon und Clemens von Alexandrien, Freiburg, 1894.
H. Kutter, Clemens Alexandrinus und das Neue Testament, Gieften, 1897.
P. M. Barnard, The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Cambridge, 1899 (Texts and Studies,
v. 5). O. Staehlin , Clemens Alexandrinus und die Septuaginta (Progr.),
Niirnberg, 1901. Bratke , Die Stellung des Clemens Alexandrinus zum
antiken Mysterienwesen , in Theol. Studien und Kritiken, (1887), Ix. 647
to 708, and P. Ziegert , ib. (1894), Ixvii. 706 — 732. W. Wagner., Wert
und Verwertung der griechischen Bildung im Urteil des Clemens von
Alexandrien, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 213 — 262.
V. KranicJi, Qua via ac ration e Clemens Alex, ethnicos ad religionem chri-
stianam adducere studuerit, Braunsberg, 1903.

8. PANT.ENUS. He was born in Sicily according to Clement (Strom.,
i. i, n), became a Christian missionary in the East (India and Arabia),
and was for many years president of the catechetical school of Alexandria
(Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 10). He died shortly before 200, and left no writings
(Clem., Strom., i. i, 11—14; Eclog. 27). It is very probable that the as
sertion of Eusebius (Hist, eccl., v. 10, 4), that Pantaenus had left books of
his own composition (suyypajjifjiaTa), and similar statements in more recent
writers (Maximus Confessor, Anastasius Sinaita) are only a hasty inference
from the fact that Clement often quotes expressions from Pantasnus. Jerome
attributes to him many Commentaries on Scripture, but he is doubtless
re-iterating Eusebius (cf. De viris illustr., c. 36; Ep. 70, 4). The <'.testimonia»
of the ancients concerning Pantaenus are met with in Routh , Reliquiae
sacrae, i. 373 — 383, and are reprinted in Migne, PG. , v. 1327 — 1332,
more fully in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 291 — 296; cf.
particularly Zahn, Forschungen, iii. 156 — 176.

9. JUDAS. A certain Judas, otherwise unknown, probably an Alexan
drine from what Eusebius says (Hist, eccl., vi. 7 ; cf. Hier., De viris illustr.,
c. 52), wrote a work on the seventy weeks of Daniel: si? ra; ~apa no AavifjX
spoojAaoac, in which he presented chronological reckonings as far as the
tenth year of the reign of Septimius Severus (203) and announced the
coming of Antichrist as imminent. Similar prophecies were made during
the persecution of Septimius Severus (cf. Hipp., Comm. in Dan., iv. 18 19).
We only need mention the quite unsuccessful attempt ofSchlatter who under
took to find in Clement (Strom., i. 21, 147) and in other writers traces of
a Christian chronography made in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (148).
He hoped, by rejection of the dates of Eusebius, to identify this chrono
graphy with the above-mentioned work of Judas. — A. Schlatter, Der Chrono
graph aus dem zehnten Jahre Antonins (Texte und Untersuchungen, xii. i),
Leipzig, 1894. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 327 755 f . ;
ii. i, 225 flf. 406 ff.

136 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

§ 39. Origen.

I . HIS LIFE AND WORKS. In the sixth book of his Church History,
Eusebius relates at length the life and labors of Origen; of the great
« Apology for Origen » composed in common by Eusebius and Pam-
philus, we possess but a few small remnants. Similarly, the correspon
dence of the great theologian has perished, with the exception of a
few pieces. He was born of Christian parents in 185 or 186, appa
rently at Alexandria. Probably it was only at a later period that
the soubriquet Adamantius (?Adajy.dvTtO£ = Man of steel) was applied
to him1. He owed his first training to his father Leonides, parti
cularly an excellent religious formation2. At an early age he fre
quented the catechetical school of Alexandria, where he profited by
the teaching of Clement3. Leonides suffered martyrdom in the per
secution of Septirnius Severus, 202 or 203 ; the ardent desire of Origen
to share his father's fate was frustrated only by his mother's ingenuity*.
Having lost its patrimony by confiscation, the family, a large one,
was reduced to poverty. In the meantime Origen had attracted
the attention of Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, and in 203, when
scarcely eighteen years of age, was called to the head-mastership of
the catechetical school, as successor to Clement5. Until 215 or 216
he worked on at this calling, a tireless and influential man. So far
as we know his teaching was at this time uninterrupted, save for a
short time by journeys to Rome and to Arabia 6. It was during these
years that ascetic zeal, roused by meditation on Mt. xix, 12, moved
him to emasculate himself7. To gain leisure for his own studies he
took in as an associate teacher his former disciple Heraclas. He retain
ed, however, the direction of the more advanced pupils8. Origen
had probably reached his twenty-fifth year when he began to attend
the lectures of Ammonius Saccas, the famous founder of Neoplatonism 9 ;
at the same time his zeal for biblical studies urged him to acquire a
knowledge of Hebrew 10. To this period also belong his first writings.
The Alexandrine massacre perpetrated by Caracalla in 215 or 216,
was the cause of Origen' s flight to Palestine. Here Alexander, bishop
of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, bishop of Csesarea, received him most
honourably, and, though he was yet a layman, induced him to preach
in their churches. Demetrius of Alexandria was dissatisfied with their
conduct, and requested Origen to return without delay. The latter
obeyed and once more took up his calling as teacher and writer11.
Seven skilled amanuenses were placed at his disposal by Ambrose,
a former disciple; they relieved one another in taking down the

1 Pamphilus-Etts , in Phot., Bibl. Cod. 118; Iher., Ep. 33, 3.

- E^is., Hist, eccl., vi. 2, 7. 3 Ib., vi. 6. 4 Ib., vi. 2, 5.

5 Ib., vi. 3, 3. 6 Ib., vi. 14, 10; 19, 15. 7 Ib., vi. 8. 8 Ib., vi. 15.

9 Ib., vi. 19. 10 Ib., vi. 1 6, I. n Ib., vi. 19, 19.

§ 39- ORIGEN. 137

master's dictation. As many copyists and some female calligraphers
were also occupied in his service, - - in a way this corps did duty as
an Alexandrine press for the publication of his works1. About 230 he
undertook, with a written recommendation from Demetrius2, a journey
to Athens in order to confer with certain heretics; on the way he
stopped at Csesarea in Palestine, where he was ordained priest3 by his
friends Alexander and Theoctistus; this without the knowledge of his
bishop and in spite of his act of self-emasculation, for which step,
on his return, Demetrius called him to account. He was deposed
from his office as head-master by two synods held at Alexandria
(231 — 232), because of his irregular ordination and his unecclesiastical
teaching; he was also expelled from the city and degraded from the
priesthood4. Shortly afterwards Demetrius died and Heraclas was
chosen his successor, whereupon Origen returned to Alexandria, only
to be again condemned and excommunicated by Heraclas for un
ecclesiastical teaching5. He now took up his permanent residence at
Csesarea, and established there a theological school that soon reached
a high degree of efficiency 6. One of its pupils, St. Gregory Thaumat-
urgus, has left us an interesting account of the method of instruction
and the course of studies carried on by Origen at Caesarea7. With
the exception of a few journeys to Athens8 and Arabia9, in the
service of the Church, he seems to have lived on in Csesarea, con
stantly busy as teacher, writer and preacher, to the time of the
Decian persecution. During that storm he was cast into prison, pro
bably at Tyre, and underwent many tortures10. Not long after he
died at Tyre11, in 254 or 255, having completed his sixty-ninth
year 12.

P. D. Huetius , Origenis in S. Scripturas commentaria, Rouen, 1668,
i. i — 278: Origeniana (on the life, doctrine, and writings of Origen, three
books), often reprinted, cf. Migne , PG., xvii. 633—1284. E. R. Rede-
penning, Origenes. Eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre, Bonn,
1841 — 1846, 2 voll. E. Freppel, Origene, Paris, 1868. 2 voll. , 2. ed.
l875; 3- ed. 1886. Fr. Bohringer , Die griechischen Vater des 3. und
4. Jahrhunderts. i: Klemens und Origenes (Die Kirche Christi und ihre
Zeugen, i. 2, i) 2. ed. Zurich, 1869. B. F. Westcott, Origenes, in Dictio
nary of Christ. Biogr. (1887), iv. 96—142. For Origen and Heraclas cf.
J. Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, Ratisbon, 1853, 261 ff. Preuschen,
Bibelzitate bei Origenes, in Zeitschr. fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch.
(1903), iv. 79— 87. F. A. Winter, Uber den Wert der direkten und in-
direkten Uberlieferung von Origenes' Biichern Contra Celsum (Progr.),
Burghausen, 1903, i. D. Genet , L'enseignement d'Origene sur la priere,
Cahors (1903).

1 Ib., vi. 23, 2. 2 Hier., De viris illustr., cc. 54 62.

a Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 8, 4. 4 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 118.

5 Phot., Collect, et demonstr., c. 9. 6 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 30.

7 Paneg. in Orig. cc. 7 — 15. 8 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, 2.

9 Ib., vi. 33, 37. 10 Ib., vi. 39, 5. 11 Ib., vii. i.

12 Hier., De viris illustr., c. 54.

138 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

2. THE WORKS OF ORIGEN. The story told to Epiphanius1 about
the 6000 books (ftiflJiouQj written by Origen was surely an exaggeration.
The catalogue of his works given by Eusebius in his lost life of
St. Pamphilus2, did not contain, if \ve believe St. Jerome3, 2000 titles,
and the catalogue made by Jerome himself4, most probably from
that of Eusebius, does not mention in its actual shape more than
800 titles; it is, however, very defective, and perhaps does not ex
hibit a continuous text. It is certain that no ecclesiastical writer
of the Ante-Nicene period equalled Origen in literary productivity.
We possess to-day but a small remnant of his works; and of these
fully one half have reached us, not in the original Greek, but in
Latin versions. Eminent writers like Jerome and Rufinus were his
translators, while Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus co-operated
in producing an elegant florilegium of his works known as the Philo-
calia or ('Qprfivou^ <pdo%a)da). Whole classes of his writings perished
as the result of the inimical edict of Justinian (543), the adverse
judgment of the Fifth General Council (553)> anc^ the attitude of the
so-called Gelasian Decretal de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis.
Origen cultivated with special zeal the field of biblical text-criticism
and exegesis; he wrote commentaries, not once, but often and in
various forms, on the greater part of the Scriptures. At the same
time he wrote a series of apologetic, polemical, dogmatic and asceti-
cal works - - in a word, he outlined the entire field of theology.
He was the first to construct a philosophico-theological system, at once
uniform and comprehensive. All the theological movements and
schools belonging to the patristic period of the Greek Church are
grouped about Origen as about a common centre of union or diver
gency. He does not belong to the first rank of stylists, being not
only very prolix in the treatment of his subject, but also diffuse
and pedantic in expression; • defects that are probably owing
to his uninterrupted oral teaching. Many of his writings were not
genuine literary labors, but ephemeral performances, dictations5, or
oral discourses copied by his hearers6.

Preuschen , in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 332 — 405. The
existing editions of St. Jerome's works give Ep. 33, only in fragmentary
form (cf. Migne, PL., xxii. 446 ff.). The catalogues of the works of Varro
and Origen were first published by Fr. Ritschl in 1848, and again in 1849.
It is on his labors that the attempts of Redepenning and Pitra to re
construct Ep. 33 Jerome are based. For Redepenning , see Zeitschr. fur
die histor. Theol. (1851), xxi. 66 — 79, and for Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. (1855),
iii. 311 — 317. With the help of new codices E. Klostermann, in Sitzungs-
berichte der k. preuft. Akad. der Wissensch. , Berlin 1897, pp. 855 — 870,
undertook to reconstruct the catalogue of the works of Origen. The Greek
text of the Philocalia Origenis of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus

1 Haer. 64, 63. 2 EMS., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, 3. 3 Adv. Rufin., ii. 22.

4 Ep. 33. 5 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 23, 2. 6 Ib., vi. 36, i.

§ 39- ORIGEN. 139

was first edited by y. Tarinus, Paris, 1619, and recently by y. A. Robinson,
Cambridge, 1893. It is also to be found in the editions of Origen (e. g.
in Migne , PG., xiv. 1309—1316). The first complete editions of Origen,
those of y. Merlin, Paris, 1512, and G. Genebrard, Paris, 1574, both of
which have often been reprinted, furnish only a Latin version, even for
those writings the Greek text of which has reached us. The Maurist sa
vants, Charles de la Rue and his nephew Charles Vincent de la Rue, were
the first to bring out a complete edition of Origen, with the exception of
the fragments of the Hexapla, Paris, 1733 — 1759, 4 voll. It was reproduced
in abbreviated form by Fr. Oberthilr, Wiirzburg, 1780 — 1794, 15 voll. The
edition of C. H. E. Lommatzsch , Berlin 1831 — 1848, 25 voll., is a much
more original and complete work. The Maurist edition, with numerous
additions (Hexapla, Philosophumena, Supplementum ad Origenis Exegetica)
is reprinted in Migne, PG., xi — xvii. A new edition of the works of
Origen is now appearing in the Berlin Collection of early ecclesiastical
Greek writers: Origenes' Werke i — ii, herausgegeben von P. Koetschau,
Leipzig, 1899. Cf. Koetschau, Kritische Bemerkungen zu meiner Ausgabe
von Origenes' Exhortatio, Contra Celsum, De oratione, Leipzig, 1899,
also Koetschau, in Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol. (1900), xliii. 321 — 377;
vol. iii., edited by E. Klostermann, contains the homilies on the Prophecy
of Jeremiah, the commentaries on the Lamentations, and the exposition
of the Book of Kings, Berlin, 1901 ; vol. iv. Origenes' Johannes-Kommentar,
edited by E. Prenschen, Berlin, 1903.

3. CRITICAL WORKS ON THE BIBLE. In the gigantic enterprise
known as the Hexapla, now lost, Origen set himself the task of
making clear at a glance the relation of the Septuagint to the original
Hebrew text; he thereby hoped to establish a solid foundation for
his theological interpretation of Scripture, and particularly for his
polemic against the Jews 1. For this purpose he copied in parallel
columns, first the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters, then the Hebrew
text in Greek letters. Then followed in four other columns the
Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theo-
dotion. In the text of the Septuagint he marked with an obelus or
cancel the words, verses or chapters that were lacking in the original
Hebrew. The < lacunae » or gaps in the Septuagint text which were
indicated by an asterisk were filled up from one of the other versions,
mostly from Theodotion's. For some books of the Old Testament
he added a fifth version, and for the Psalms a fifth, sixth and seventh2.
From its six columns the work was known as Hexapla (kqanXa, sc
fpdp.p.ara) or six-fold writing. This great enterprise, begun at Alex
andria, is said to have been finished at Tyre; therefore, towards the
end of his life3. Very probably no second copy was ever made
of the entire work. The fifth column (Hexaplar recension of the
Septuagint) was often copied, and we still possess some fragments
of its Greek text. The greater part of it has also reached us in a
Syriac version, slavishly literal, made in 616 or 617, by Paul, bishop

1 Orig., Comm. in Matth., xv. 14.

2 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 16; Hicr., Comm. in Titum ad iii. 9.

3 Epiph., De mens. et pond., c. 18.

I4O FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

of Telia. Origen prepared also a work known as the Tetrapla *,
a collation of the four principal Greek versions of the Old Testa
ment, those namely of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and
Theodotion. It has utterly perished. There is no foundation for the
opinion of Hug that Origen undertook a revision or recension of the
text of the New Testament.

The fragments of the Hexapla were collected by B. de Montfaucon,
Paris, 1713, 2 voll. (cf. Migne, PG., xv — xvi) and Fr. Field, Oxford, 1867
to 1875, 2 voll. More important than the appendices of J. B. Pitra (1884)
and £. Klostermami (1894) is the yet unpublished discovery by G. Mercati
of a Hexapla fragment of the Psalms. G. Mercati, Un palinsesto ambro-
siano dei Salmi Esapli, Turin, 1896, in Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze
di Torino. The same writer has also made important contributions to the
history and text of the Hexapla, in Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana
antica (Studi e Testi v), Rome, 1901, i (pp. i — 7): Una congettura sopra
il libro del Giusto ; ii (pp. 8 — 16): Sul testo ebraico del Salmo 140 (141);
iii (pp. 17 — 27): Sul canone biblico di S. Epifanio; iv (pp. 28—46): D'alcuni
frammenti esaplari sulla va e via edizione greca della Bibbia (there is laid
claim, for the Hexapla, by interior and exterior reasons, to some few lines
of this iv. part ; they are entitled zspl TTJ? e' xal r Ixooaewc aAXaK : Migne,
PG., Ixxxiv. 29); v (pp. 47 — 60): Sul testo et sul senso di Eusebio, Hist,
eccl., vi. 1 6. J. Hallvy, L'origine de la transcription du texte hebreu en
caracteres grecs dans les Hexaples d'Origene, in Journal asiatique, ser. ix
(1901), xviii. 335 — 341. Hale'vy was opposed by J. B. Chabot, ib. 349 — 350;
and replied ib. (1902), xix. 134 — 136 140 — 144; C. Taylor, Hebrew-Greek
Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-Schechter collection, including a
fragment of the 22. Psalm according to Origen's Hexapla, Cambridge, 1901.
The Syriac version is of very great importance for the reconstruction of the
Hexaplar text of the Septuagint ; the second half of a complete copy of that
version was published in photolithograph by A. M. Ceriani (Monum. sacra et
prof. ex. codd. praes. bibl. Ambrosianae, Milan, 1874, vii.); the other extant
fragments were published by P. de Lagarde, Bibl. Syriaca, Gottingen, 1892,
pp. i — 256. In general, for the history of the Hexapla, see the intro
ductions to the Old Testament. The theory of Hug is refuted by Hund-
hausen, in Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon, 2. ed., ii. (1883), 700.

4. BIBLICO-EXEGETICAL WRITINGS. His exegetical writings may
be divided into three groups: scholia, homilies and commentaries.
The scholia (a%bha. or ay/jtstaHretQJ, called excerpta by Jerome and
Rufinus, are brief notes on the more difficult passages or the more
obscure words. The homilies (ofidiat, homiliae, tractatus), are ser
mons on select chapters of the Bible. The commentaries (TU/JLOI, volu-
mina, libri) are detailed and often exhaustive studies, illustrative of
the biblical text. Unlike the more popular homilies, they contain
philosophico-theological disquisitions, by means of which the more
intelligent readers may discover the deeper truths of Scripture 2. Origen
wrote scholia on Exodus and Leviticus3, also on Numbers4. Some

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 16, 44; Epiph., De mens. et pond., c. 19.

2 Hier., Interpr. horn. Grig, in Ezech., prol. 3 Cf. Catal. in Hier. Ep. 33.
4 Rufin., Interpr. horn. Grig, in Num., prol.

§ 39- ORIGEN. 141

fragments of these may yet be discovered in the Catenae. Some
fragments of the scholia on Exodus are met with in the Philocalia
(c. 27) !. His scholia on Numbers were, partially at least, included
by Rufinus in his translation of the homilies of Origen on Numbers2.
Origen also wrote homilies on all the books of the Pentateuch3,
after 244 on the first four books, on Deuteronomy about 233. Of
their Greek text only fragments remain4, though they might be
considerably increased by a more careful search in the Catenae. In
the meantime there are extant in the version or paraphrase of Ru
finus seventeen homilies on Genesis5, thirteen on Exodus6, sixteen on
Leviticus7, twenty-eight on Numbers8. It was also the intention of
Rufinus to translate those on Deuteronomy, of which the catalogue
numbers thirteen9. Beside the seventeen homilies on Genesis the
catalogue of his works mentions mysticarum homiliamm libros 2,
which also dealt with Genesis10, but of which \ve have no more
exact knowledge. It is possible that the homily on Melchisedech
quoted by Jerome n was one of them. Finally he composed a com
mentary on Genesis, probably in thirteen books, the first eight of
which were written at Alexandria, the others at Csesarea 12. He did
not get beyond Gen. v. I 13. Only a few fragments of it are extant 14,
mostly citations in the Philocalia (c. 14 23) from the third book.
It seems that on the historical books of the Old Testament Origen
delivered or wrote only homilies. Rufinus translated 15 twenty-six
homilies on Josue that \vere probably delivered during the persecution
of Decius 16. A Greek fragment of the twentieth homily is found in
the Philocalia (c. 12); in 1894, Klostermann discovered notable re
mnants of the first four and the last eleven in the Octateuch-Catena
of the sophist Procopius of Gaza. There exists a Latin version
made by Rufinus17 of nine homilies on Judges18 mentioned about
235 by Origen himself. Between these nine and the four on the
first book of Kings the Catalogue places eight homilies De pascha,
a title that seems enigmatic if only by reason of its position. Two
homilies on the first book of Kings have been preserved, one on
I Kings i. — ii., in a Latin version of unknown origin19, the other
in the original Greek, on I Kings xxviii., or concerning the witch
of Endor (nepl TYJQ IfraffTptfjtuftoui)20. Cassiodorus mentions21 a homily

1 Migne, PG., xii. 263 — 282. 2 Rufin., 1. c.

3 Orig., Horn. 8 in Luc. 4 Migne, PG., xii. 161 — 168 353 — 354, al.

5 Ib., xii. 145—162. 6 lb,, xii. 297—396.

7 Ib., xii. 405 — 574. 8 Ib., xii. 583-806. ° Rufin., 1. c.

10 Rufin,, Apol., ii. 20. u Ep. 73, 2. 12 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 24, 2.

13 Orig., Contra Gels., vi. 49; cf. Hier., Ep. 36, 9.

14 Migne, PG., xii. 45—92. 15 Ib., xii. 823—948.

16 Horn, in los., ix. 10. 17 Migne, PG., xii. 951 — 990.

18 Orig., Prolog, in Cant., in Migne, PG., xiii. 78. 19 Ib., xii. 995—1012.

20 Ib., xii. 1011 — 1028. 2I Inst., i. 2.

142 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

on 2 Kings, one on the second book of Paralipomenon 1 , a homily
respectively on the first and second book of Esdras; all translated2
by his friend Bellator. The twenty-two homilies on Job found a
Latin epitomator in Hilary of Poitiers3, but of this epitome only
two small fragments remain4, and remnants of the Greek text seem
to be still found in the Catenae. - - Origen treated the Psalms in
all three of the above-mentioned ways5. The Catalogue mentions
scholia on Psalms I — 15, and on the whole Psalter, also homilies
on various Psalms. In all he wrote 120 homilies on 63 Psalms. He
also wrote forty-six books of commentaries on forty-one Psalms.
Elsewhere Jerome speaks6 of a commentary on Ps. 126, and a
tractatus Phe liter ae , probably an explanation of the verses of
Psalm 118 that began with the Hebrew letter D. Eusebius mentions
an explanation of Psalms I — 25 written when Origen was still resi
dent in Alexandria 7. Apart from an endless lot of fragments in
the Catenae there is extant but very little of the Greek text of his
various writings on the Psalms. There exist, however, in a Latin
version of Rufinus, nine homilies, five on Psalm 36, two on Psalm 37,
and two on Psalm 38; they date approximately from 240— 245 8.
In his own commentary on the Psalms, Hilary of Poitiers made an ex
tensive use of the labors of Origen9. In his above-mentioned Cata
logue Jerome sets down seven homilies on Proverbs, a commentary
in three books, a De proverbiorum quibusdam quaestionibus librum I ;
fragments of which have reached us almost only through the Ca
tenae. It seems that the scholia and eight homilies on Ecclesiastes
are altogether lost. An elegant version of St. Jerome 10 has preserved
the two homilies on the Canticle of canticles. In the Philocalia
(c. 7, i) has been saved a fragment, taken from some otherwise
unknown youthful work of Origen on the Canticle of canticles11.
Besides some Greek Catenae-fragments of his commentary on the
latter book, we possess the prologue, the first three books and a
part of the fourth , in a Latin version by Rufinus 12. This com
mentary was originally in ten books; five of them he wrote at
Athens about 240, and the others shortly after, at Caesarea 13. Of
these commentaries Jerome said 14 : Origenes , cum in celeris libris
omnes vicerit, in Cantico canticorum ipse se vicit. On the prophet
Isaias he also wrote scholia, homilies and a commentary15. The
homilies were apparently twenty-five in number16; nine of them

1 Cass., Inst., i. 2. 2 Ib., i. 6.

3 Hier., Ep. 61, 2; De viris illust., c. 100. 4 Migne, PL., x. 723 — 724.

5 Hier., Comm. in Psalm., prol. G Ep. 34, I.

7 Eus., Hist, eccl, vi. 24, 2. 8 Migne, PG., xii. 1319 — 1410.

u Hier., Ep. 61, 2; De viris illustr., c. 100. 10 Migne, PG., xiii. 35—58.

11 Ib., xiii. 35—66. '2 Ib., xiii., 61 — 198.

13 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, 2. u Interpr. horn. Orig. in Cant., prol.

15 Hier., Comm. in Is., prol. 1G Ib.

§ 39- ORIGEX. 143

have reached us in a Latin translation by Jerome, who purged them
of heterodox sentiments 1. The commentary on Isaias was composed
at Csesarea about 235, and dealt in thirty books with the text to
Is. xxx. 5 2. A few small fragments of it are found in the text of
Pamphilus3. Two books on the vision in Isaias xxx. 6 ff. were held
by Jerome to be spurious4. - - An Escurial codex of the twelfth
century has preserved for us the Greek text of nineteen homilies
on Jeremias5, delivered by Origen after 244; also fourteen, in a
Latin version by Jerome6. Twelve of the Latin homilies (i 24
8 — 14 1 6 17) are found also in Greek. The other two (20 21) are
wanting in the Greek text of the manuscript. Cassiodorus was ac
quainted with forty-five homilies on Jeremias7, and the Philocalia
contains (cc. I 10) two fragments of the thirty-ninth homily on that
prophet8. - - Origen composed at Alexandria a commentary on the
Lamentations, five books of which were known to Eusebius 9. Maxi-
mus Confessor cites a tenth book of the same 10, but the only frag
ments saved are apparently those in the Catenae. Of the homilies
on Jeremias, delivered after those on Ezechiel ] *, fourteen have reached
us in a Latin version of Jerome, who removed from them the
doctrinal errors12. Origen also began at Csesarea and finished at
Athens, about 240, a commentary on Ezechiel in twenty-five books13.
A fragment of the 20. book is met with in the Philocalia (c. n)14.
The ancients say nothing of any work on Daniel. After 244, Origen
wrote at Csesarea a commentary on the twelve minor prophets, of
which Eusebius15 could find «only twenty-five books » 16. The Cata
logue of Origen' s works mentions commentaries on all the minor
prophets, with the exception of Abdias. The only known fragment
preserved is from the commentary on Osee in Philocalia c. 8 17. He
wrote a special opuscule on the pretended mystic sense of the
word «Ephraim» in Osee18. The Gospel of St. Matthew was illu
strated by Origen with scholia, twenty-five homilies and a commen
tary in twenty-five books 19. The commentary was composed at Cae-
sarea20 after 244. The original Greek is still extant in part (books 10 to
17, on Mt. xiii. 36 to xxii. 33) 21. A still larger portion (Mt. xvi. 13

1 Migne, PG., xiii. 219 — 254. 2 E^^s., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, i.

3 Apol. pro Orig., cc. 5 7; Migne, PG., xiii. 217 — 220.

4 Hier., Comm. in Is., prol. 5 Migne, PG., xiii. 256 — 526.
6 Ib., xiii. 255 — 542. 7 Inst., i. 3.

3 Migne, PG., xiii. 541 — 544. 9 Hist, eccl., vi. 24, 2.

10 Schol. in Dion. Areop., in Migne, PG., iv. 549.

11 Orig., Horn, in Kzech., xi. 5. 12 Migne, PG., xiii. 665—768.

ia Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 32, 1—2. u Migne, PG., xiii. 663 — 666.

15 Hist, eccl., vi. 36, 2. 1G /Her., De viris ill., c. 75.

17 Migne, PG., xiii. 825 — 828. l8 Hier., Comm. in Hos., prol.

19 Hier., Comm. in Matth., prol. 20 Etts., Hist, eccl., vi. 36, 2.

-1 Migne, PG., xiii. 835 — 1600.

144 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

to xxvii. 63) exists in an ancient anonymous Latin recension *.
There are also a few scattered fragments of the commentary on
St. Matthew2. Nothing is known of Origen's labors on St. Mark.
Jerome translated thirty-nine homilies on St. Luke, that may have
been delivered shortly after 233 3. The Catenae have preserved
numerous fragments of these homilies, that apparently numbered
more than thirty-nine4. He wrote also a commentary on St. Luke
in five books, but it is lost with the exception of some Catenae-
fragments5. - - For St. John the Catalogue enumerates scholia and
a commentary in thirty-two books6; of this commentary, besides
small fragments of various books , the Greek text of the following
books I 2 6 10 13 19 (incomplete) 20 28 32 has been saved for
us by a Munich Codex of the twelfth or thirteenth century7. The
first five books were written at Alexandria, it is thought before the
year 228 8; but in the time of the persecution of Maximinus (235
to 238) the work was still unfinished9; very probably it originally
consisted of more than thirty-two books 10. - - Of the seventeen
homilies on the Acts of the Apostles we know only one fragment
of the fourth preserved in the Philocalia (c. 7, 2) n. We possess
the fifteen books of the commentary (written after 244) on the Epistle
to the Romans, but in a Latin recension in ten books, made by
Rufinus 12. His copy of the original Greek of this commentary con
tained a text both incomplete and corrupt; moreover it was on a
Latin version of the Epistle to the Romans that Rufinus based his
exposition. The Catalogue mentions eleven homilies on the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, but probably we ought to read the First
Epistle13; there are Catenae -fragments of homilies on the latter.
On the Epistle to the Galatians he wrote scholia u , seven homilies
and five books of a commentary ; fragments of the first book of the
commentary are quoted by Pamphilus15. In his commentary on
this Epistle /St. Jerome follows Origen closely16. He made a still
more copious use of the text of Origen in his commentary on the
Epistle to the Ephesians 17. Origen had written a commentary on the
latter in three books; Greek fragments, of which some are lengthy,

1 Migne, PG., xiii. 993— 1800. 2 Ib., xiii. 829 — 834.

3 Ib., xiii. 1799 — 1902.

4 Orig., Comm. in Matth., xiii. 29 ; Comm. in Io., xxxii. 2.

5 Hier., Interpr. horn. Orig. in Luc., prol. -- The Catalogue mentions 15 books.

6 Hier., Interpr. horn. Orig. in Luc., prol. — In Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 24, I, for 22
it should be read 32.

7 Migne, PG., xiv. 21 — 830. 8 Comm. in Io. i. 4; vi. I.

9 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 28. 10 Orig., Comm. in Matth. ser., c. 133.

11 Migne, PG., xiv. 829—832. 12 Ib., xiv. 831— 1294.

13 Hier, Ep. 49, 3.

14 Cf. the Catalogue, and Hier., Comm. in Gal., prol.; Ep. 112, 4.

15 Apol. pro Orig., c. 5; Migne, PG., xiv. 1293—1298. l6 Hier., 11. cc.
17 Hier., Comm. in Epiph., prol.; Adv. Rufin., i. 16, 21; iii. 11.

§ 39- ORIGEN. 145

are met with in the Catenae, also a Latin fragment in Jerome *. Ac
cording to the Catalogue he wrote a commentary in one book on
the Epistle to the Philippians, and one in two books on the Epistle
to the Colossians, while Pamphilus2 quotes a passage from a third
book of that commentary. Similarly, the Catalogue mentions a com
mentary in three books on the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, a
long fragment of which is quoted by St. Jerome3. He also wrote
a commentary in one book on the Second Epistle to Thessalonians.
The same Catalogue indicates two homilies on Epist. ad Thess. without
distinguishing to which one they belong. He wrote a homily and
a commentary in one book on the Epistle to Titus; Pamphilus4
cites five fragments from it. The same writer has also preserved5 a
fragment of a commentary in one book on the Epistle to Philemon.
It would seem that the only remnants of the eight homilies on the
Epistle to the Hebrews are two quotations in Eusebius6. Though,
strangely enough, the Catalogue says nothing of a commentary on
Hebrews; Pamphilus7 quotes four passages from it. There is no
indication in the Catalogue of any treatises on the Catholic Epistles
or on the Apocalypse. It is certain, however, that Origen intended
to write a commentary on the latter8.

A new edition of the exegetical works of Origen will need to sift
with more care than has hitherto been used the Catenae-fragments fre
quently referred to in the preceding pages. There must be a sifting of
the genuine from the spurious; as far as possible, each genuine passage
must also be traced back to its proper source. Many such fragments are
found in the De la Rue edition (Migne, xii — xiii, passim). Additions were
made by Gallandi and Mai (Migne, xvii. 9 — 370: Supplementum ad Ori-
genis Exegetica). In his Analecta sacra, ii. 335 — 345 349—483; iii. i to
588, Pitra published recently from Vatican Catenae lengthy fragments on
the Old Testament (Octateuch, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets). Cf
Fr. Loofs in Theol. Literaturzeitung 1884, pp. 459 — 463. For fragments
of New Testament Catenae see especially J. A. Cramer, Catenae graeco-
rum Patrum in Nov. Test., Oxford, 1838 — 1844, 8 voll. On the Catenae
in general cf. Prcuschen in Harnack , 1. c., 403 — 405 835 — 842. On the
extracts from the homilies on Josue found in Procopius of Gaza see
E. Klostermann in Texte und Untersuchungen , Leipzig, 1894, xii. 3, 2.
The homily on i Kings, c. xxviii (the Witch of Endor) , was re-edited
(1886) with the reply of St. Eustathius of Antioch by A. Jakn, 1. c., ii. 4.
Origen's commentary on the Canticle of canticles is dealt with by W. Riedel,
Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes, Leipzig, 1898, pp. 52 --66. The text-
tradition of the homilies on Jeremias is illustrated by E. Klostermann, in
Texte und Untersuchungen (1897), xvi., new series, i. 3. For the ideas of
Origen on the Book of Daniel as gathered from writings, extant or lost,
in the commentary of St. Jerome on Daniel, cf. J. Lataix, Le commen-

1 Hier., Adv. Rufin., i. 28. z Apol. pro Orig., c. 5.

3 Ep. 119, 9 — 10 ; cf. Orig., Contra Gels., ii. 65.

4 Apol. pro Orig., cc. 19. 5 lb., c. 6.

6 Hist, eccl., vi. 25, 11 — 14. 7 Apol. pro Orig., cc. 3 5.

3 Comm. in Matth., ser. c. 49.
BARDFNHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. IO

146 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

taire de St. Jerome stir Daniel ii, opinions d'Origene , in Revue d'hist.
et de litterat. religieuses (1897), ii. 268—275. On the Greek fragments of
the homilies on St. Luke edited by A. Thenn in Zeitschr. fur wissensch.
Theol. (1891 — 1893) cf. y. Sickenberger , in Theol. Quartalschr. (1896),
Ixxviii. T 88 — 191. For a new edition of the remnants of the commentary
on St. John we are indebted to A. E. Brooke, Cambridge, 1896, 2 voll.
y. A. P. Gregg, The commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, in Journal of Theological Studies (1902), iii. 233 — 234 398—420
554 — 576, began a republication of that commentary; its fragments had
already been collected by Cramer from the Catenae. For the Tractatus
Origenis de libris SS. Scripturarum edited by Batiffol and Wilmart in
1900 cf. § 55, 4. Concerning the canon of the Old Testament in Origen
see y. P. van Kasteren, in Revue biblique (1901), x. 412 — 423. E. Preu-
schen, Bibelzitate bei Origenes, in Zeitschr. fiir die neutestamentl. Wissensch.
(1903), iv. 79 — 87. The general character of his homilies is discussed
by Rcdepenning, Origenes, ii. 212 — 261. Cf. Westcott, in Diet, of Christ.
Biogr., iv. 104 — 118, where the reader will find a good index of the con
tents of the homilies and commentaries. There is a German version ot
some homilies by E. A. Winter, in G. Leonhardi, Die Predigt in der Kirche,
Leipzig, 1893, xxii. C. yenkins, The Origen-Citations in Cramer's Catena
on i Corinthians, Journal of Theological Studies (1904), vi. 113 — 116.

5. GENERAL ESTIMATE OF HIS BIBLICAL WRITINGS. --It is prin
cipally the mystic sense of the Scriptures that Origen seeks to ex
hibit in his exegetical works; the historical sense he almost entirely
neglects1. Guided by the analogy of Plato's trichotomous division
of man he felt obliged to distinguish in the Scriptures a triple sense :
somatic, psychic and pneumatic2. Practically, his theory would not
work. And so, in view of the division of the Cosmos into flesh and
spirit (alfffhjTa, and vor^d), he was wont to distinguish in the Scrip
tures a carnal and a spiritual sense3. His fatal error was the total
abandonment or denial , in many places, of the literal or historical
sense, in favor of the spiritual sense4. There are, he maintained,
in the Holy Scriptures repulsive and scandalous and impossible sayings
fffxdvda/M xai Ttpoffxo/jifJiaTa xac douvaraj , the carnal interpretation
of which is intolerable; when interpreted spiritually, however, they
are seen to be only the integuments of deep mysteries5. Even
the Evangelists frequently set forth pneumatic truth in somatic false
hood 6 (ffO)£ofJl£VOU "OAAV.XIQ T0[) dtyftoUQ TTVSUfJtaTtXOtJ SV TCO (TCOfJ.V.TCXW,

WQ (iv sl'noc. TtQ, ^z'jdzi). It must be admitted that Origen pos
sessed a certain knowledge of Hebrew, though it did not excede
very modest limits7. For the comparison of the Septuagint and
the original Hebrew he was always dependent upon the authority
of others. Indeed, the dominant idea of the Hexapla is their apo-

1 Hier., Comm. in Mai., prol.

2 De princ., iv , ii ; Horn, in Levit., v. I 5.

3 Horn, in Levit., i. I ; Comm. in Jo., x. 4.

4 Horn, in Gen. ii. 6; De princ, iv. 12. 5 De princ., iv. 15.

6 Comm. in Jo., x. 4. 7 Horn, in Gen., xii. 4; Horn, in Num.^ xiv. I,

§ 39- ORIGEN. 147

logetic usefulness, rather than the gain of textual criticism. He was
all the less inclined to entertain the idea of a critical study of the
Septuagint translation on the basis of the original Hebrew, since
he was persuaded that the text of the Septuagint was divinely in
spired l. Its obscurities and solecisms are to him signs of special my
steries. When he detects a variation from the Hebrew text or from
New Testament quotations, he prefers to admit falsification of the
original Hebrew by the Jews , or a corruption of the manuscripts
of the New Testament, rather than to acknowledge an error on the
part of the Septuagint.

Redepenning, Origenes, i. 232 — 324; cf. ii. 156 — 188. A. Zollig , Die
Inspirationslehre des Origenes. Ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte (Straft-
burger theolog. Studien, v. i), Freiburg i. Br. 1902.

6. WORKS AGAINST PAGANS AND JEWS. - - An apologetic work
in eight books against Celsus (xara Kilao'j, contra Celsunt) has been
preserved in a Vatican codex of the thirteenth century2; the Philo-
calia has also preserved lengthy fragments of it, equal in size to
about one seventh of the whole work. Celsus, a Platonic eclectic,
had published about 178 a work entitled « Veracious Demonstration*
(dtyttyQ AofOQJ. From Origen's refutation of the work we gather
that in the first part the author attacked Christianity, in the person
of a Jew who took his stand upon the racial faith in the Messias;
in the second part he undertook to show the hopelessness of the
Messianic idea and thereby to overthrow the cornerstone of Christia
nity; in the third part he assailed certain specific Christian doctrines,
while in the fourth he defended the state-religion of the heathens.
As is stated in the preface, the refutation of this work was written
by Origen at the request of his friend Ambrose, during the reign
of Philippus Arabs3, probably in 248, and follows sentence by sen
tence the text of the » Demonstration ». It falls, therefore, pre
scinding from the long introduction (i. I — 27), into four parts that
correspond with the division of the work of Celsus (i. 28 to ii. 79;
iii to v; vi. i to vii. 61; vii. 62 to viii. 71). Both in ancient4 and
modern times, it has been pronounced the most perfect apologetic work
of the primitive Church. At least, Origen has nowhere exhibited
greater learning. His calm attitude and dignified diction, the natural
outcome of a sense of intellectual superiority, affects the reader favo
rably when compared with the passionate invectives of his opponent.
In this same work5 Origen refers to a discussion with some learned
Jews in presence of several legal arbiters. It was probably reduced
to writing, but we have no more accurate knowledge concerning it.

1 Comrn. in Cant. i. ; Migne, PG., xiii. 93. * Migne, PG., xi. 641 — 1632.

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 36, 2. 4 E^ts., Adv. Hierocl. c. i.

5 Contra Celsum i. 45.

148 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

P. Koetschau, Die Uberlieferung der Biicher des Origenes gegen Celsus,
in Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1889, vi. i ; cf. F. Wctllis in The
Classical Review (1889), iii. 392 — 398; J. A.Robinson in The Journal of
Philology (1890), xviii. 288 — 296. The editio princeps (Greek text) is that
of D. Hoschel, Augsburg, 1605. A new edition has been prepared by
Koetschau, Leipzig, 1899 (Die griech. christl. Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrh., Origenes I — II ; see § 39, 2). A German translation was made by J. Rohm,
Kempten, 1876 — 1877, 2 voll. (Bibl. der Kirchenvater). K. J. Neumann,
Der romische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche, Leipzig 1900, i. 265 — 273
(treats of the time and occasion of its composition). J. Patrick, The apo
logy of Origen in reply to Celsus, London, 1892. See also the literature
relative to the work of Celsus: Th. Keim , Celsus' Wahres Wort, Zurich,
1873. B. Aubt , Hist, des persecutions de 1'Eglise, ii. La polemique
pa'ienne a la fin du IP siecle, 2. ed., Paris, 1878. E. Pdagaud, Celse,
Paris, 1879. P- Koetschau, Die Gliederung des fltXijIH)? Xoyoc des Celsus, in
Jahrb. fur protest. Theol. (1892), xviii. 604 — 632. J.Fr. S.Muth, DerKampf
des heidnischen Philosophen Celsus gegen das Christentum, Mainz, 1899.
F. A. Winter, Uber den Wert der direkten und indirekten Uberlieferung
von Origenes' Biichern « Contra Celsum» (Progr.), Burghausen, 1903, i.

7. WORKS AGAINST HERETICS. - - His writings against heresy,
and the records of his oral controversies with heretics, are known
to us only through citations ; thus, Julius Africanus mentions * a dis
putation on an unknown subject with a certain Agnomon (?) Bassus.
Origen himself tells us of a discussion with the Valentinian Candidus
(in the Catalogue it is called Dialogus adversus Candidum Valenti-
nianum), probably at Athens about 240 , on the origin of the Son
from the Father, and the possibility of the devil's conversion 2. Euse-
bius narrates the fact of his colloquy with Berillus, bishop of Bostra
in Arabia, on the subject of Monarchianism, about the year 244 3.

The tradition in Epiphanius (Haer. 66, 21) that Origen refuted the
Manichaeans, and that he wrote against Menander, Basilides, Hermogenes
and others, took its origin, very probably, in the fact that incidentally his
works abound in anti-heretical polemic. Cf. Theodoret., Haer. fab. comp.
i. 2 4 19 25; ii. 2 7; iii. i. For the authorship of the Philosophumena
cf. § 54, i 3, and on the Dialogus de recta in Deum fide cf. § 46, 2.

8. DOGMATIC WRITINGS. - - The original text of all the doctrinal
writings of Origen is lost. The most important of these works was
the De Principiis, 7izp\ dpyuw. It treated in four books of the funda
mental doctrines or principles of Christian faith. Only some meagre
fragments of the original have been preserved, mostly in the Philo-
calia Origenis (cc. I 21). The whole work has reached us in a
translation, or rather a free paraphrase, by Rufinus4; on the other
hand the translation of St. Jerome, that aimed at literal correctness,

1 Jul. Afr., Ep. ad Orig. c. I ; Orig., Ep. ad Afr. c. 2.

"2 Orig., Ep. ad quosdam caros sues Alexandriam, in Rufin., De adult, libr. Orig. ;
Migne, PG., xvii. 624 ff. ; Hier., Adv. Rufin., ii. 18 — 19.

3 Hist, eccl., vi. 33, 3 ; Hier., De viris ill. c. 60.

4 Migne, PG., xi. in — 414.

§ 39- ORIGEN. 149

has shared the fate of the original. Only a few fragments of it are
extant1. On the foundations of the apostolic preaching, as roughly
outlined by him at the beginning of his work, Origen undertakes to
construct a consistent system of doctrine. The first book treats dif
fusely of God and the world of spirits; the second of the world and
man, their renovation by means of the Incarnation of the Logos, and
their end or scope; the third discusses human freedom and the final
triumph of the good ; the fourth is devoted to a theory of scriptural
interpretation. This work was composed at Alexandria2, about 230,
and is the earliest attempt at a scientific exposition of Christian doc
trine. By reason, however, of its departure from the lines of eccle
siastical tradition it aroused in equal measure both opposition and
admiration. It was at Alexandria also3 (before 231) that he wrote
his ten books of « Miscellanies » (arpcoparelq; cf. § 38, 3), on the aim
and contents of which the few extant fragments 4 throw no clear light.
From the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, Numenius
and Cornutus, he drew proofs of the truth of Christianity 5. Various
scriptural texts, e. g. of Daniel and Galatians, were explained by
means of scholia*. Before writing the De principiis he had composed
at Alexandria two books on the resurrection, ^spl dvaGrdascoQ1 . The
Catalogue of his works mentions two dialogues on the same subject
dedicated to his friend Ambrose8. Some fragments of his work on
the resurrection (De resurrectione) 9 of the body are preserved in the
homonymous work of Methodius of Olympus; others in a treatise
of St. Jerome10. Methodius defended against Origen the material
identity of the risen body with that we now possess.

A separate edition of the De principiis was published by E. R. Rede-
penning, Leipzig, 1836. C. Fr. Schnitzer had already undertaken a recon
struction of it in German, Stuttgart, 1835. For an English translation of
the fragments of the «De principiis» see Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe,
1885, iv. 239 384). The libellus de arbitrii libertate mentioned by Origen
(Comm. in Rom., vii. 16) is identified with De principiis, iii. i. The little
work «On the sin against the Holy Spirit» in Athanasius (Ep. 4 , 9 ad
Scrap.) corresponds to De principiis, i. 3. E. Riggenbach, Der trinitarische
Taufbefehl Mt. xxviii. 19 bei Origenes, Giitersloh, 1904.

9. ASCETIC WORKS AND HOMILIES. - Two of his works on
practical asceticism have reached us, and their text is fairly well-
preserved. Though not exempt from the influence of heterodox

1 Hier., Ep. 124. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 24, 3. 3 Ib.

4 Migne, PG., xi. 99—108.

5 Hier., Ep. 70, 4 ; see the remarks of Eusebius concerning Origen's critical com
mentaries on the writings of pagan philosophers, in Hist, eccl., vi. 18, 3.

6 Hier., Comm. in Dan. ad iv. 5; ix. 24; xiii. i ; Comm. in Gal., prol. ; ad v. 13

7 Orig., De princ., ii. 10, I ; Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 24, 2.

8 Cf. Theoph. Alex., in Hier., Ep. 92, 4.

<J Migne, PG., xi. 91 — 100. I0 Hier., Contra lo. Hieros, cc. 25—26.

!50 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

ideas, they breathe a spirit of genuine piety. The work on Prayer
fasp} stiff?) 1 was composed after the commentary on Genesis (c. 23),
probably after 231, and was dedicated to Ambrose and Tatiana,
the latter's wife or sister. It treats in the first part of prayer in
general (cc. 3 — 17) and in the second (cc. 18—30) of the Lord's
Prayer. The Exhortation to Martyrdom (elq imprvptov nporpemtxbq
MfOQJ2, written some years later, appeals with powerful eloquence
to Ambrose and to Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, who had
encountered3 grave perils in the persecution of Maximinus Thrax

(235 238). In his Catalogue of the works of Origen St. Jerome

mentions, beside the exegetical homilies, other homilies, of which so
far as is known, there is now no trace: De pace horn, i, Exhorta-
toria ad Pioniam, De ieiunio . De monogamis et trigamis horn, ii,
In Thar so horn. ii.

The work on Prayer was first printed at Oxford in 1686. The Ex
hortation to Martyrdom was edited by J. R. Wetstein, Basle, 1674. A new
edition of both has been brought out by P. Koetsehau, Leipzig, 1899 (Die
griech. christl. Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrh. , Origenes i— ii). For
a German version of the same cf. J. Kohlhofer , Kempten, 1874 (Bibl.
der Kirchenvater). F. A. Winter, liber den Wert der direkten und in-
direkten Uberlieferung von Origenes' Biichern « contra Celsum» (Progr.),
Burghausen, 1903, i.

10. THE LETTERS OF ORIGEN. - - Origen must have kept up a
very extensive correspondence. The Catalogue of his works makes
mention of several collections of letters: Epistolarum eius ad diver sos
libri ix, Aliarum epistolarum libri ii, Excerpt a Origenis et diver-
sarum ad eum epistolarum libri ii (epistolae synodorum super causa
Origenis in libra secundo). Of all these only two complete letters
have reached us, one to Julius Africanus4 and one to St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus 5. The first was written at Nicomedia (cc. I 15)
about 240. It defends with much erudition the genuineness and cano-
nicity of the history of Susanna (and of the other deutero-canonical
parts of the Book of Daniel) against objections of Julius Africanus
in a letter addressed to Origen himself6. The second letter, pro
bably written in the same year, contains fatherly advice to his former
disciple Gregory: he should not allow his interest in the Holy
Scriptures to flag, and should look on the study of the profane
sciences only as a means towards the higher end of the knowledge
of the Scriptures. Several other letters are known to us through
citations in Eusebius, Rufinus, Jerome and others, e. g. one in reply
to the reproach of too great attachment to Hellenic science7, another

1 Migne, PG., xi. 416—561. 2 Ib., xi. 564—637.

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 28. 4 Migne, PG., xi. 48—85.

5 Ib., xi. 88—92. 6 Ib., xi. 41—48.

7 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 19, 12 — 14.

§ 39- ORIGEN. 151

to the Emperor Philippus Arabs, and one to his consort, the Em
press Severa 1, letters to Pope Fabian and to very many other bishops
«in the matter of his orthodoxy » 2.

For the letter to St. Gregorius Thaumaturgus see J. Drdseke , in
Jahrb. f. prot. Theologie (1881), vii. 102 — 126. It is published as an
appendix to P. Koetschau's edition of the panegyric of St. Gregory on Origen
(pp. 40 — 44, cf. xv — xvii), Freiburg i. Br., 1894.

11. WORKS OF UNCERTAIN AUTHORSHIP. - - In the preface to
his Liber inter pretationis hebraicorum nominum , St. Jerome says
that it is a Latin version of a lexicon of proper names of the Old
Testament made by Philo, and of a similar New Testament lexicon
made by Origen. The author of the Quaestiones et Responsa ad
Orthodoxos, attributed to St. Justin, makes Origen the author of Ex
position of names or measures that recur in the Sacred Scriptures
(qu. 86; cf. 82). The work in question may be some compilation
by a later writer of etymologies of biblical proper names, proposed
at different times by Origen. It seems certain that in their actual
shape the Greek Onomastica, first edited by Martianay (1699), and
recently by de Lagarde (1870 1887), are much more recent than
the lexica compiled by Jerome. Victor of Capua3 cites fragments
ex libro tertio Origenis TTS/K <p6ffecov and ex Origenis libro primo
De pascha. There is no other mention of a work by Origen mpl
<p6(jsa>v. A libel his Origenis De pascha is mentioned in the Liber
Anatoli de ratione paschali (c. i)4.

On the lexicon of the proper names in the New Testament see
O. Bardenhewer, Der Name Maria, Freiburg, 1895 (Bibl. Studien, i. i),
pp. 23 — 26; Redepenning, Origenes, i. 458 — 461; Zahn, Gesch. des neu-
testamentl. Kanons, ii. 948 — 953.

12. PHILOSOPHICO-THEOLOGICAL IDEAS OF ORIGEN. — It was with
the purest intention of contrasting the false Gnosis with true science,
and of winning over to the Church the educated circles of Hellenism,
that Origen undertook the combination of Hellenic philosophy with
the faith of the Church. Nevertheless, his doctrinal system, that he
imagined to be both Christian and ecclesiastical, bears the marks of
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. According to him it is a necessary
consequence of the goodness of God that He should reveal or
communicate Himself. It follows likewise, from His immutability,
that this revelation should be from all eternity. Its organ is the
Logos, other than the Father5, not only in person but in sub
stance (y.ar oijoiav xat bnoxstfjisvov : De orat. 1. c.). It is through

1 Ib., vi. 36, 3.

2 Ib., vi. 36, 4; for the letter to Pope Fabian see Hier., Ep. 84, 10.

3 Schol. vet. Patr., in Pitra, Spicil. Solesm., i. 268.

4 Migne, PG., x. 210.

5 De orat. c. 15: erspog rou xarpdg: Contra Gels., v. 39: deorspoq &eog.

I $ 2 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

the Logos that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; He is
inferior to the Logos, as the latter is inferior to the Father1.
The next degree in the development of the divine unity into multi
plicity is the world of spirits, to which belong the souls of men.
They were all created from eternity and in equal perfection. They
are not, however, essentially good ; it is only by the exercise of their
free will that they choose goodness. In the past they abused their
freedom in manifold ways. In consequence, this sensible world was
created as a place of purification for spirits expelled by God from
their original home, enveloped in matter of divers kinds, and exiled
in more or less gross material shapes, to which class our human
bodies belong. In the end, however, all spirits must return to God.
It is true that some must continue to undergo a process of purification,
in the other world, but eventually all shall be saved and transfigured.
Evil is then overcome ; the world of the senses has fulfilled its purpose ;
all the non-spiritual elements sink or fade into nothing ; the original unity
of God and of all spiritual being is restored. Withal, this final restitution
of original conditions (drroxaTdcrTamc;, restitutio) cannot be truly called
the end of the world ; properly speaking it is only the precarious
term of an evolution that moves on endlessly between apostasy from
God and return to Him. — Soon after his death the famous Origenistic
controversies broke out, and found an echo even in the far-away West.
In 543 the Synod of Constantinople condemned in fifteen «anathema-
tisms» an equal number of propositions from Origen2, and in 553
the Fifth General Council ranked him with « heretics » in its eleventh
«anathematism» 3.

G. Thomasius, Origenes. Ein Beytrag zur Dogmengeschichte des 3. Jahr-
hunderts, Ntirnberg, 1837. G. Ranters, Des Origenes Lehre von der Auf-
erstehung desFleisches (Inaug.-Diss.) , Trier, 1851. F. Harrer, Die Trinitats-
lehre des Kirchenlehrers Origenes (Progr.), Regensburg, 1858. J. B. Kraus,
Die Lehre des Origenes liber die Auferstehung der Toten (Progr.), Regens
burg^ 1859. Al. Vincenzi, In S. Gregorii Nysseni et Origenis scripta et
doctrinam nova recensio, cum appendice de actis synodi V. oecum., Romae,
1864—1869, 5 voll. Knittel, Des Origenes Lehre von der Menschwerdung
des Sohnes Gottes, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1872), liv. 97 — 138. H. Schultz,
Die Christologie des Origenes im Zusammenhange seiner Weltanschauung,
in Jahrb. fur protest. Theol. (1875), i. 193—247 369—424. J. Denis,
De la philosophic d'Origene. Memoire couronne par 1'Institut, Paris,
1884, vii. 730. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Freiburg,
1888, i. 2, 559—604. M. Lang, Uber die Leiblichkeit der Vermmft-
wesen bei Origenes (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1892. L. Atzberger, Gesch.
der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit, Freiburg, 1896,

\\T\ 9 \~\\\ 4 C* r\ f-r iSfhi-ffiiAna ~\~\c± C\*-\ <^-^.-^> \ ^4-"U I -.«. A /T 'I _ O _ O ^V 'T"1. . -- -- „ 7

pp. 366—456.

L'eschatologie

d'hist. et de litterature religieuses (1900), v. 99—127. °W. Fairweather ,

>p. 366—456. G. Capitaine, De Origenis ethica, Minister, 1898. J. Turmel,
L'eschatologie a la fin du 4* siecle. i : L'eschatologie orige'niste, in Revue

1 De princip., i. 3, 5. - Mansi, SS. Cone. Coll., ix. 395—400.

3 Ib., ix. 384.

§ 40. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 153

Origen and Greek Patristic Theology, London, 1901. G. Anrich, Clemens
und Origenes als Begriinder der Lehre vom Fegfeuer (Abhandlungen fur
H. y. Holtzmann), Tubingen, 1902. F. Nau, Le concile apostolique dans
Origene, in Bull. crit. (1904), pp. 435—438.

13. AMBROSE. - - This oft-mentioned friend and protector of Origen
had been a high official of the imperial court (Epiph. , Haer. 64, 3).
Through Origen he became a convert from Gnosticism (Eus. , Hist, eccl.,
vi. 18, i). He left a correspondence with Origen (Hier., De viris ill., c. 56).
Short fragments of two letters of Ambrose are preserved in Orig., De orat,
c. 5; Hier., Ep. 43, i.

14. TRYPHO. — Besides some letters this disciple of Origen wrote many
tractates (multa opuscula) , among them one on the sacrifice of the red
cow (Nm. xix) and another on the sacrifice of Abraham (Gen. xv. 9 if).
See Jerome, De viris ill., c. 57. So far as is known, no fragment of his
writings has reached us.

15. AMMONIUS. — In his Church History Eusebius has confounded the
Neoplatonist philosopher Ammonius Sakkas with a Christian of the same name.
Among other books the latter wrote one on the accord between Moses
and Jesus (-spl TYJ? Mwuj£u>c xal 'Irjjou aufjuptoviac : Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 19, 10).
He is probably identical with the « Ammonius of Alexandria » who com
piled a synopsis of the gospels (ota Tsaaapwv suay/eAiov) based on St. Matthew
(Eus., Ep. ad Carpianum; Hieronymus is inexact in De viris ill., c. 55).
It is supposed that Ammonius was a contemporary of Origen. For the
Latin gospel-harmony printed under his name see § 18, 3.

§ 40. Dionysius of Alexandria.

i. HIS LIFE. - - He was born, apparently, before the end of
the second century \ of heathen parents. Through diligent reading
and earnest investigation he was led to the Christian faith2, and
began to frequent the school of Origen3. From 231 — 232 he
was the successor of Heraklas as head-master of the Alexandrine
catechetical school 4 and retained the office, it would seem, even after
he had succeeded Heraklas (247 — 248) as bishop of Alexandria5.
The rest of his life was a series of conflicts and sufferings. In 250 — 251,
he escaped by flight from the persecution of Decius6. During the
persecution of Valerian in 257 — 258 he was banished to Kephro
in Libya, and later to Colluthion in the Mareotis, «a still more savage
and Libya-like place»7. He does not seem to have returned to
Alexandria before March 262. There he found awaiting him a con
dition of civil war, famine and pestilence8. He was too ill to take
part in the Synod that met at Antioch in 264 — 265 in order to de
cide concerning Paul of Samosata9; he passed away during the de
liberations of the Synod 10.

Dittrich, Dionysius der Grofie von Alexandrien, Freiburg 1867. Cf.
Th. Forster, in Zeitschr. fur die histor. Theol. (1871), xli. 42 — 76.

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 27, 2. ° Ib., vii. 7, 3.

3 Ib., vi. 29, 4. 4 Ib. 5 Ib., vi, 35. 6 Ib., vi. 40.

7 Ib., vii. II. 8 Ib., vii. 21 — 22. a Ib., vii. 27, 2.

10 Ib., vii. 28, 3.

154 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

2. WORKS OF DIONYSIUS. - - He was honored by Eusebius with
the title of Great1, and Athanasius called him a Doctor of the
Catholic Church2. His greatness, however, was more in the man
than in the teacher. He bore with energy and success the part that
fell to him in the ecclesiastical difficulties of his time, and showed
himself no less eloquent and firm in dealing with error, than he was
mild and sagacious in his treatment of those who had gone astray.
His writings are all occasional, dictated by the need of the hour.
His diction is clear and lively, and while in doctrinal exposition he
is not free from obscurity, he is always dominated by the noblest
and most self-sacrificing spirit of zeal for the salvation of souls. Only
a few fragments of his writings have reached us; most of them and
those of chief importance, owe their preservation to their insertion
into the Church History of Eusebius.

These fragments are found in Migne, PG., x. 1233 — 1344, 1575 — 1602,
but in a very imperfect condition. A better edition is that of S. de Magi-
stris, Rome, 1796, overlooked by Migne. For a list of the fragments missing
in the edition of Migne see Pitra, Analecta Sacra iii. 596. Some Syriac and
Armenian fragments current under the name of Dionysius were collected
and translated into Latin by P. Martin, in Pitra, 1. c. , iv. 169 — 182,
413 — 422 (cf. xxiii ff.). See Harnack, Gesch. der altchristlichen Literatur,
i. 409 — 427; TJi. Forster, De doctrina et sententiis Dionysii M. ep. Alex.
(Dissert, inaug.), Berlin, 1865; C/i. L. Feltoe, AIOVUJI'OU Xsfyava. The Letters
and other remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, in Cambridge Patristic
Texts (1904), xxxv. 283.

3. HIS PRINCIPAL WORKS. - - In the Books on Nature, ol xsp}
yjffscoQ Aofoi 3, as the fragments in Eusebius 4 show, he composed a
solid and thorough polemic against an Epicureanism or materialism
based on the atomic system of Democritus. The work was probably
composed previous to 247 — 248. We know only the title of the
Book on Temptations (o xspl nstpaafjL&v AofOQJ5. Through a later
Catena there have come down some copious fragments, generally
speaking authentic, of his commentary on Ecclesiastes 6, written
supposedly before 247—248. They cover Ecclesiastes I, I to 3, II7.
The Catenae-fragments on the Book of Job are not genuine. Two
Books on the Promises (itzp\ Ena-ffSAtaw duo ffUffpafJi/jtaTaj, written
probably in 253 — 257, are directed against a « Refutation of the
Allegorists» (%faf%oq (DJ^opiGicov), composed by a certain Nepos,
bishop in the district of Arsinoe8. In opposition to Origen the latter
undertook to defend the historical interpretation of the Scriptures, and
maintained that in the Apocalypse there was promised after the Re-

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii., praef. 2 Ep. de sent. Dion., c. 6.

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 26, 2.

4 Praep. Evang., xiv. 23—27; Migne, PG., x. 1249—1268.

5 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 26, 2. 6 Ib., vii. 26, 3.

7 Migne, PG., x. 1577—1588. 8 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 24, I.

4°- DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. I 55

surrection a millennial reign of the just on this earth. In the first book
of his work Dionysius argued against these Chiliastic dreams, while in
the second he commented on the authority of the Apocalypse. Ac
cording to him it was composed by a «holy and divinely inspired
man», though not by the Evangelist John *. His own orthodoxy
was the subject of a controversy that broke out apropos of some
letters he wrote, after 257, in reference to Sabellianism 2. In order
to emphasize very plainly the personal distinction between the Father
and the Son, Dionysius had made use of expressions and similes that
implied a distinction in substance and reduced the Son to the rank
of a creature3. For this a complaint was laid against him before
Pope Dionysius (259 — 268), and he was invited by the latter to ex
plain his words. This he did in a reply4 to the Pope, and more
fully in the four books of his « Refutation and Defence » f^ef^oQ
xat djcoXoyia.) 5. They contain an exposition of his thoroughly orthodox
teaching concerning the Trinity, and seem to have quite satisfied the
Pope. The extant fragments have come down to us chiefly through
citations in Athanasius and Basil the Great.

The first and most complete collection of the fragments of the work
on Nature is in Routh , Reliquiae sacrae, iv. 393—437. The fragments
preserved by Eusebius were translated into German and illustrated at
length by G. Roch , Die Schrift des alexandr. Bischofs Dionysius d. Gr.
«tiber die Natur» (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1882. There is an English
translation of the literary remains of Dionysius by Salmond, in Ante-Nicene
Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 81 — 120. For the spurious Catenae-frag
ments on Job see Routh, 1. c., iv. 439 — 454, and ib.; iii. 390 — 400 (Migne,
PL., v. 117 — 128) for the remnants of the « Refutation and Defence», taken
from Athanasius, Basil the Great, and other authors. We ought probably to
add a fragment from «the first book of the work against Sabellius (~poj 2a-
psXXtov), mentioned by Eusebius (Praep. evang., vii. 19). For his teaching
concerning the Trinity see H. Hagemann, Die romische Kirche ... in den
ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Freiburg, 1864, PP- 411 — 432, and Dittrich,
1. c., pp. 91—115.

4. HIS LETTERS. -- Apropos of the schism of Novatian and the
question of the treatment of the Lapsi, Dionysius wrote, after 251,
a serie-: of letters, in which he urged Novatian and his followers to
submit to the legitimate Pope Cornelius (251- — 253) and advocated
the mildest possible treatment of those who had fallen during the per
secutions. His Letter to the anti-pope Novatian is a noble and memo
rable document6. He wrote also a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch,
some fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius7. After 256 he

1 Fragments of the second book in Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 24 — 25; Migne , PG.,
x. 1237—1250.

2 Eiis., Hist, eccl., vii. 6, 26, I. 3 Athan., Ep. de sent. Dion., c. 4.
4 Ib., c. 18. 5 Ib., c. 13; cf. Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 26, i.

6 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 45.

7 Ib., vi. 41 — 42 44; for other letters cf. ib., vi. 46.

1^6 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

acted as peacemaker in the conflict concerning the validity of heretical
baptism, though he does not seem to have thoroughly grasped the
full meaning of the controversy. Only Eusebian excerpts of the
latter correspondence have reached us1. Apropos of the teachings
of Paul of Samosata he wrote in 264 — 265 a condemnatory letter
to the Church of Antioch2. The letter to Paul, found in the col
lections of the councils3, is an Apollinarist or Monophysite forgery.
It was an ancient custom of the bishops of Alexandria to send
an annual letter to the churches of their dioceses. Such communi
cations were known as Festal Letters (imaroXat kopraanxai) and
were usually issued after Epiphany. They announced the date of
Easter and the beginning of the preparatory fast ; they also contained
instructions concerning the Easter festival or other matters. From
a few of these Festal Letters of Dionysius, Eusebius has saved
some historical data4. In a Festal Letter to Domitius and Didymus,
written in the reign of Decius, before the Easter of 25 15, Dionysius
promulgates an eight-year paschal cycle, and orders that the feast
shall always be celebrated after the Spring Equinox6. He wrote
in his own defence to the Egyptian bishop Germanus who had
reproached him for flying from the persecution7. In a letter to
Hermammon and the brethren in Egypt, Dionysius « related much
concerning the iniquity of Decius and his successors and then made
mention of the peace under Gallienus» 8. A letter to Basilides,
bishop of the churches of the Pentapolis9, has been preserved
in its entirety, by reason of its incorporation among the canonical
documents of the Greek Church. It treats principally of the precise
time of the Resurrection of Our Lord, and therefore of the time
when the fast of preparation should cease and the paschal festivities
begin10. Stephen Gobarus mentions a letter of Dionysius to Theo-
tecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, written after the death of
Origen, and dealing favorably with his memory11.

The Epistola canonica ad Basilidem is in Routh, 1. c. , iii. 219 — 250,
also in Pitra, luris eccles. Graecorum historia et monumenta, Romae, 1864,
J- 54* — 545; cf. 548 f. For two letters in a Codex Vaticanus bearing the
name of Dionysius but belonging to Isidore Pelusiota, see G. Mercati,
Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi, v. 2—86),
Rome, 1901. G. Holzhey, in Theol. - praktische Monatsschrift (1901), xi.
5J3 -525> concludes from the relations between the Didascalia Apostolorum
? 46) and the works of Dionysius that towards the end of his literary
career he recast the original nucleus of the Didascalia -} probably it was
done by one of his disciples, shortly after his death. At a later date this

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 4—9. "- Ib., vii. 27, 2.

J Mansi, i. 1039 — 1088. * Eus., Hist, eccl.', vii. 20—22.

Ib., vii. ii, 20-25. 6 Ib., vii. 20. T Ib., vi. 40; vii. ii.

8 Ib., vii. 22, 12; fragments ib., vii. i, 10, 23. 9 Ib., vii. 26, 3.

10 Migne, PG., x. 1271—1290. u Phot., Bibl. God. 232.

§41- LATER HEADMASTERS OF THE CATECHET. SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA. l^'J

revised Didascalia was enlarged to its present shape. In the Revue
d'Histoire ecclesiastique (1901), ii. 808 — 809, F. X. Funk, expresses grave
doubts concerning this theory of Holzhey.

5. ANATOLIUS. - - This writer appears about 262 as a respectable and
influential citizen of Alexandria. We meet him later as coadjutor of Theo-
tecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. From 269 he was bishop of Lao-
dicea in Syria. He was well-skilled in philosophy, the natural sciences
and mathematics, and he wrote some works : on Easter (-spl TOO -rcaj/a), an
introduction to arithmetic (dptBfxr)Tixal £177.7(077.1) in ten books, and «spe-
cimens of his erudition and ability in theology» (Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 32, 6;
Hier., De viris ill., c. 73). His theological writings are lost. Of very
doubtful authenticity are certain mathematical fragments under the name
of Anatolius (Fabricius-Harles, Bibl. Gr., iii. 461 462 — 464; Migne, PG.,
x. 231 — 236). Of his work on Easter, Eusebius has preserved a long
fra'gment (Hist, eccl., vii. 32, 14 — 19). As to the Liber Anatoli de ratione
paschali printed with a commentary (Migne, PG. , x. 209 — 232), we may
believe with Zahn (Forschungen [1884], iii. 177 — 196) that it is not a
translation of the work of the hishop of Laodicea, although in the second
chapter, almost the entire Eusebian paschal-fragment is cited. Br. Krusch
maintains (Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologic, Leipzig, 1880,
pp. 311 — 316) that it is a sixth-century forgery, made in England during
the Brito-Roman controversy on the manner of celebrating Easter. We
owe to Krusch a new edition of the Liber Anatoli (ib. , pp. 316 — 327).
Cf. A. Anscombe and C. H. Turner, in The English Historical Review (1895),
x. 515 — 535 699—710: T. Hicklin, The date and origin of the Pseudo-
Anatolius «de ratione paschali», in Journal of Philology (1901), xxviii.
137 — 151. He finds in the work traces of an original composition about
300, and of a version made about 410. There is an English translation
by Salmond, of the fragments of Anatolius, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed.
Coxe, 1896), vi. 146 — 153.

§ 41. The later headmasters of the catechetical school of Alexandria.

I . THEOGNOSTUS. — In an anonymous excerpt from Philippus Sidetes
(§ 20, i), it is said that Pierius was the successor of Dionysius in the
catechetical school of Alexandria, and that Theognostus succeeded
Pierius. In all probability, however, Theognostus preceded Pierius 1 ;
this writer is not mentioned by either Eusebius or Jerome. He
left seven books of «Hypotyposes» (uxoToxwasu;, cf. § 38, 4). Ac
cording to the description of them by Photius-, they contained a
dogmatic system disposed in a strictly orderly manner, but also
strongly influenced by Origenistic theories. The first book treated of
God the Father, the second of the Son, the third of the Holy Spirit,
the fourth of angels and demons, the fifth and sixth of the Incarnation
of the Son, the seventh of the divine creation of the world (n^pi
$eo'j drjfJLtoupYiaQ). Certain citations from Theognostus in works of
Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa were very probably taken from
the « Hypotyposes» .

1 Athan., Ep. 4 ad Scrap, c. 9; Ep. de deer. Nic. Syn., c. 25.
* Bibl. Cod. 106.

158 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

For the «testimonia» concerning Theognostus and the editions of the
fragments of the Hypotyposes see Migne, PG., x. 235 — 242, and Routh,
Reliquiae sacrae (2), iii. 405 — 422. For an English translation of the frag
ments of Theognostus see Salmond , in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe,
1890), vi. 155 — 156. - - A. Harnack , Die Hypotyposen des Theognost
(Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, ix. 3), Leipzig, 1903. Fr. Diekamp,
Ein neues Fragment aus den Hypotyposen des Alexandriners Theognostus,
in Theol. Quartalschr. (1902), Ixxxiv. 48 — 494.

2. PIERIUS — He was a priest of Alexandria, in the time of Theonas,
bishop of that city (281 — 300), and was distinguished as an ascetic,
a writer and a preacher1. His ability as a Christian orator caused
him to be known as «the younger Origen»2. Philippus Sidetes (see
§ 41, i) and Photius3 assert that he was head-master of the cate
chetical school at Alexandria. They also say (Philip in an extract
first edited by De Boor) that he was a martyr. They probably do
not mean that he actually died a martyr's death, but that he publicly
confessed Christ. He certainly survived the persecution of Diocletian,
for we meet him at Rome after the persecution of Diocletian 4. Photius 5
speaks of a work (pif-Mov) of Pierius in twelve treatises (MyotJ containing
Origenistic errors on the subordination of the Holy Spirit and the pre-
existence of souls. Eusebius and Jerome may be interpreted as meaning
that it was a book of sermons 6. According to Photius, one fragment
of the work was entitled «on the gospel of St. Luke» fstQ TO xara
Aouxavj, another «on Easter and Osee» (sl^ TO Tidayo. xac rbv "Qarti).
St. Jerome says7 that the latter work was a long Easter sermon
on the beginning of the prophecy of Osee. The titles of three other
works are mentioned in the excerpts found in Philippus Sidetes; the
first of a series of paschal sermons (b rrpwwQ ti>?oc, rwv SCQ TO ndaya)
on the ideas of St. Paul concerning virginity and matrimony8; on
the Mother of God (mp\ TY,Q &ZOTOXO<J) ; on the life of St. Pamphilus
(dq TOV fiiov TOO afiou IIa.fj.<piXov), the friend of Eusebius and disciple
of St. Pierius 9.

For the fragments of Pierius see Routh, 1. c. , iii. 423—435, and
Migne, PG., x. 241—246. Some new fragments were published by C. de Boor,
in Texte und Untersuchungen (1888), v. 2, 165—184. For an English
translation of the fragments of Pierius see Salmond, in Ante-Nicene Fathers
(ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 157. -- Until recently the above-mentioned bishop,
Theonas of Alexandria, was usually identified with the homonymous bishop
under whose name had long been current a Latin letter ad Ludanum cubi-
culariorum praepositum, first published by d'Achery in 1675, whence it pas
sed unchallenged into the Bibliothecae patrum (Routh, 1. c., iii. 437—449;
Migne, PG., x. 1567—1574). This letter pretends to instruct Lucian, chief
of the imperial chamberlains , and the other Christian officers at court as

Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 32, 26 f. 30. * Hier., De viris ill., c. 76.

Bibl. Cod. 118 119. 4 Hier^ De yiris m<) c 76_

5 Bibl. Cod. 119. e £us t } c . ifiet\, 1. c.

7 L. c. and Comm. in Hos., praef. 8 Hier En 49 3

9 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 118 119.

§41- LATER HEADMASTERS OF THE CATECHET. SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA. 159

to the manner in which they shall act in order to preserve and strengthen
the favorable sentiments of the still pagan emperor (Diocletian?) towards
Christians. After the researches of P. Batiffol, in Bulletin Critique (1886),
vii. 155 — 1 60, and Harnack, Theol. Literaturzeitung (1886), xi. 319 — 326,
there can be no doubt that the letter is a forgery of late date, perhaps
from the pen of the Oratorian Jerome Vignier (f 1661): cf. § 3, 2. -
A. Harnack, Der gefalschte Brief des Bischofs Theonas an den Ober-
kammerherrn Lucian, in Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, Leipzig,
1903, ix. 3. There is an English translation of the Letter of Theonas by
Salmond, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 158 — 161.

3. PETER OF ALEXANDRIA. - - According to the afore-mentioned
«excerpts» from Philippus Sidetes, Theognostus was followed by
Serapion in the headship of the Alexandrine catechetical school, and
Serapion by Peter. It is no longer possible to identify Serapion.
Peter, on the other hand, was bishop of Alexandria and «a splendid
model of a bishop » from the year 300 until his death as a martyr
in 3 1 1 1. We still possess in a Latin version a brief letter addressed
by Peter to his people shortly after the outbreak of the persecution
of Diocletian (Febr. 303), in order to warn them against Meletius,
the intruded bishop of Lycopolis 2. There is extant also an epitome
of a treatise on penance (-zp\ peravoiaQ), of the year 306, both in
Greek and in a Syriac version. Its fourteen canons regulate the con
ditions on which those who had fallen in the persecution might
return to ecclesiastical communion. It is usually called Epistola canonica 3.
In several of the Greek manuscripts a fifteenth canon is added from
a work of St. Peter on Easter (SIQ TO -xdaya, xspt TOO Ti(j.oya), known
to us also from other sources. In the Acts of the Council of Ephesus
(431) there appear three citations from a work of Peter on the Divi
nity (xepl ftzoTYjToc) 4. Two other citations, extant in Syriac only, are
apparently spurious. A fragment of his work on the Coming of the
Savior (nsp\ TTJQ acorrjpo^ rjfj.atv ^ntdiq/jtiaGj is quoted by Leontius
of Byzantium5. In his work against the Monophysites this latter
writer quotes two fragments from the first book of a work of Peter
written against the pre-existence and the antecedent sinfulness of the
soul (nepl Toil ftr^ds. n pound p%£tv ryv fiuffiv fJLTjds. afAaprqaaaav TOOTO
slg ffdj/jia ftkqftyvat). They are especially interesting, since they show
that Peter opposed with energy, not only in preaching but in writing,
the errors of Origen. This is also proved by seven Syriac fragments
of a work De resurrectione, which rigorously defends the material
identity of the post-resurrection body with that we now possess.

Routh, 1. c., iv. 19 — 82, and Migne, PG., xviii. 449 — 522. The best
edition (Greek and Syriac) of the Epistola canonica is that of P. de La-
gar de , Reliquiae iuris eccles. antiquissimae , Leipzig, 1856, Greek text

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., ix. 6, 2, cf. viii. 13, 7; vii. 32, 31.

2 Migne, PG., xviii. 509—510. 3 Ib., xviii. 467 — 508.

4 Ib., xviii. 509 — 512. 5 Contra Nestor, et Eutych., 1. I.

I6O FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

pp. 63 — 73, Syriac text pp. 99 — 117. See also Greek text, pp. xlvi — liv.
In Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 187 — 195 425 — 430, P. Martin collected and
translated other fragments (Syriac and Armenian). For an English trans
lation of the Acts of Peter, the Canonical Epistle and some fragments see
Hawkins, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 261 — 285. — W. E.
Crum, Texts attributed to Peter of Alexandria, in Journal of Theological
Studies (1903), iv. 387 — 397. See Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur,
i. 443 — 449. In his Fragment einer Schrift des Martyrerbischofs Petrus
von Alexandrien, Leipzig, 1901 (Texte und Untersuchungen , new series,
v. 4, 2) Karl Schmidt has made known a Coptic text (with German trans
lation) of a fragment of a rigid exhortation to the observance of the Sunday
rest. He attributes it to Peter, who is clearly indicated in the text. The
fragment itself is certainly of a later date ; it is perhaps the source of the
famous Letter of Christ that was alleged to have fallen from heaven (Ana
lecta Bollandiana (1901), xx. 101 — 103).

4. PHILEAS OF THMUIS. -- From his prison in Alexandria, where he
died a martyr about 307, Phileas, bishop of Thmuis in Lower Egypt, ad
dressed a letter to his church. Eusebius extracted from it a long passage
concerning the conflicts and triumphs of the martyrs at Alexandria (Hist.
eccl., viii. 10; cf. Hier., De viris ill., c. 78). We possess also, in a Latin
version, a letter written in common by the imprisoned bishops Hesychius,
Pachomius, Theodorus and Phileas, addressed to Meletius, bishop of Lyco-
polis, who had been conferring orders outside his own diocese, in contra
vention of the ecclesiastical canons (Routh, 1. c., iv. 83 — in; Migne, PG.,
x. 1559 — 1568). There is an English translation of the literary remains of
Phileas by Salmond, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 1 6 1 — 164.

5. HESYCHIUS. — An Egyptian Hesychius, who may have lived towards
the end of the third century, undertook a critical revision of the Septuagint
(Hier., Praef. in Paral. ; Comm. in Is. ad 58, n), also a recension of the
New Testament or at least of the Gospels (Hier., Praef. in Evang.). We
cannot say that he is identical with the Hesychius just mentioned (cf. Eus.,
Hist, eccl., viii. 13, 7, and the Introductions to the New Testament).

6. HIERAKAS. - - This writer lived about 300 at Leontopolis in the
Nile Delta, where he gathered about himself a large community of ascetics.
He wrote commentaries on the Scriptures in Greek and Egyptian (Coptic),
a work on the Hexaemeron, many new Psalms (^OCAJJIOUC TtoAXoo? vsoTepixotk),
and perhaps some special works on marriage and on the Holy Spirit.
He carried to the last extreme the allegorism and spiritualism of Origen,
rejected marriage, denied the resurrection of the body, claimed that the
Holy Ghost had manifested Himself in Melchisedech, and excluded from
the kingdom of heaven those children who died before attaining the use
of reason, even if they had been baptized. Our only source of information
concerning Hierakas is the account in Epiphanius (Haer. 67 ; cf. Haer.
55, 5; 69, 7).

§ 42. The so-called Apostolic Church-Ordinance.

This is the title given by its first editor, J. W. Bickell (1843), to
a little work which announces itself as emanating from the twelve
Apostles. The complete Greek text has reached us in only one
manuscript, probably of the twelfth century. The title it offers is:
a: dia.ra.fai at dia KtytjLs.vToc, xal xavovsQ ixxfymaaTixot TCOV afitov
The first words, al ocara^al at oca KtypevTOQ xa\, are

§ 42- THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CHURCH-ORDINANCE. l6l

surely a later addition, borrowed from the so-called Apostolic Con
stitutions (§ 75, i). Apart from the introduction (cc. I- — 3) and the
conclusion (c. 30) the work falls into two parts, the first of which
(cc. 4 — 14) presents moral rules, while the second (cc. 15 — 29) contains
legal ordinances. The moral rules are thrown into the form of a
description of the Way of Life and the Way of Death, or rather of
the Way of Life. The legal ordinances deal with the qualities of a
bishop (c. 1 6), the presbyters (cc. 17 18), the lector (c. 19), the deacons
(cc. 20 22), the widow-deaconesses (c. 21), also the proper conduct of
the laity (c. 23), and the question of the participation of women in
the liturgical service (cc. 24 — 29). In both parts each phrase or
chapter is placed in the mouth of an Apostle (e. g. 'fwdyvyg etTrsv,
Marftaioz, etxsy). The entire first part or description of the Way of
Life is no more than a slightly modified revision of the Two Ways
(§ 6) in the Didache (cc. I, I to 4 8). Harnack attempted to identify
in the second part fragments of two earlier canonical documents.
But Funk has shown that this is impossible. The work was probably
composed towards the end of the third century, and with equal pro
bability in Egypt. In that land it seems to have found a more general
acceptance and diffusion, and to have attained the dignity of a local
Canon Law. With it begins the Corpus iuris canonici of the Coptic,
Ethiopic and Arabic churches of Egypt. An ancient Syriac version
and a fragment of an ancient Latin version have reached us. Jerome
mentions1 a pseudo-Petrine work known as Liber iiidicii (i. e. Petri),
and Rufinus knew2 a Liber ecclesiasticus, entitled Duae viae vel
Indicium secundum Pet rum (al. Indicium Petri]. In both places there
is probably question of the Apostolic Church-Ordinance. The title
Duae viae was easily suggested by the contents of the first part;
that of ludidum Petri came probably from the fact that Peter is
introduced as speaker oftener than the other apostles and has the
last word (c. 30).

For editions of the Greek text of the Apostolic Church-Ordinance see
J. W. Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, Giessen, 1843, i- I07 — I32i
A. P. de Lagarde, Reliquiae iuris ecclesiastic! autiquissimae graece, Leipzig,
1856, pp. 74 — 79; Pttra , Iuris ecclesiastic! Graecorum historia et monu-
menta, Romae, 1864, i. 75—88; A. Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra
canonem rec. , fasc. iv, Leipzig, 1866, pp. 93 — 106; 2. ed. 1884, pp. no
to 121. It. is also reprinted or re-edited in the editions of the Didache
(§ 6, 4) by Philotheos Brycnnios, Constantinople, 1883; Harnack, Leipzig,
1884 and 1893; Ph. Schaff, New York, 1885 1886 1889 (the latter gives'
only cc. i — 13 of the Apostolic Church-Ordinance); F. X. Funk, Tubingen,
1887; y. Mendel Harris, Baltimore and London, 1887. -- An Ethiopic
text, with a Latin version, had already been edited by y. Ludolfus, Ad suam
Historian! Aethiopicam antehac editam Commentarius, Frankfurt, 1691,
314—323. In his Apostolic Constitutions, London, 1848, pp. i — 30,
H. Tattam published a North-Egyptian (Memphitic, Bohairic) text, with an

1 De viris ill., c. i. 2 Comm. in Symb. Apost., c. 38.

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. I i

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

English version. On the basis of the edition of Tattam, P. Botticher
(P. de Lagarde) undertook to re-translate this text into Greek, in Chr. C.
J. Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, London, 1854, ii, 451—460. A South-
Egyptian (Theban, Sahidic) text was published by P. de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca,
Gottingen, 1883, pp. 239 — 248 (without a translation), and by U. Bouriant,
in Recueil de travaux relatifs a la philol. et a 1'archeol. egypt. et assyr.,
Paris, 1883 — 1884, v. 202 — 206 (also without a translation). It has been
shown that the North-Egyptian text is a version of the South-Egyptian;
it is still doubtful whether it be also the parent of the Ethiopic text.
An Arabian text, preserved in manuscript, is not yet published. In his
Stromation Archaiologikon , Rome, 1900, pp. 15—31, A. Baumstark pu
blished a Syriac text; similarly J. P. Arendzen, An Entire Syriac Text of
the Apostolic Church-Order, in Journal of Theological Studies (1901), iii.
^_g0< jror the conclusion of a very ancient Latin text see E. Hauler,
Didascaliae apostolorum fragmenta Veronensia Latina, Leipzig, 1900, i.
QJ — IOI ^ Krawutzky , Uber das altkirchliche Unterrichtsbuch «Die
zwei Wege oder die Entscheidung des Petrus», in Theol. Quartalschr.
(1892), Ixiv. 359 — 445. A. Harnack, Die Quellen der sog. apostolischen
Kirchenordnung, Leipzig, 1886 (Texte und Untersuchungen ii. 5). Funk,
Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 236—251.
Th. Schermann, Eine neue Handschrift der apostolischen Kirchenordnung,
in Oriens Christianus (1902), pp. 398 — 408.

THE LETTER OF PSENOSiRis. - - This is perhaps the place to insert,
among the writings of the Alexandrines, the letter that the priest Pseno-
siris wrote to Apollo, his brother in the Lord, notifying him that a female
fellow-citizen (iroXmxrjv), exiled by the city-prefect to the Oasis, had been
placed by him (Psenosiris) in the hands of good and faithful fossores or
grave-diggers. This letter was discovered among other papyri that came
from Kysis (Diisch-el-Kala) in the Great Oasis and are now in the British
Museum. They bear dates varying from 242 to 307. It is coniectured
that the woman was a Christian exiled for her faith to the Great Oasis, in
which case it must be question either of the persecution of Valerian or
that of Diocletian. Most of those who have written about this document
decide for the latter date.

The Letter of Psenosiris was edited by A. Deissmann , Ein Original-
Dokument aus der diokletianischen Christenverfolgung , Papyrus 713 des
British Museum, Tubingen and Leipzig, 1902 ; Id., The Epistle of Pseno
siris, an Original Document from the Diocletian Persecution, London,
1902 ; P. Franchi de' Cavalieri , Una lettera del tempo della persecuzione
diocleziana, in Nuovo Bullet, di archeologia cristiana (1902), viii. 15 — 25;
A. Mercati, in the Italian translation of the present work, Rome, 1903, iii. ix.

B. SYRO-PALESTINIANS.
§ 43- Julius Africanus.

I . HIS LIFE. - - Sextus Julius Africanus, a Lybian \ seems to
have been an officer in the expedition of Septimius Severus against
the Osrhoenes (195). He enjoyed intimate relations both with the
royal house of Edessa and the imperial family. About 211 — 215 he
visited Alexandria and attended the lectures of Heraclas (§ 39, i)2.
During the reign of Alexander Severus (222- 235) he held an office

1 Suidas, Lex. s. v. Africanus. - Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 31, 2.

§ 43- JULIUS AFRICANUS. 163

of distinction at Emmaus-Nicopolis in the plain of Philistia1. Later
Syriac writers have been misled into making him a bishop of Em-
maus; he does not seem to have been even a presbyter. He died
after 240 (cf. § 39, 10).

H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie,
Leipzig, 1880 — 1898, i. i — n.

2. THE CHRONOGRAPHIA. THE KsaroL - - His most important
work was a universal chronicle in five books completed in 221 and
entitled Ckroncgraphia (ypovoypatpiai) 2. Though none of its five books
is intact, more or less lengthy fragments of all have reached us.
The purpose of Africanus was to correlate and harmonize Jewish and
Christian history with the history of the Gentile world. He found in
the biblical dates the sure criterion by which to judge the historicity
of the profane dates offered in the current manuals of chronology.
The entire history of the world, according to Africanus, covers a
period of six thousand years; the first three thousand are closed by
the death of Phaleg, « because in his days the earth was divided »
(Gen. x. 25). The next three thousand years will close with the end
of the world; half-way in the last millennium, i. e. in the year 5500,
the Son of God became man. This first of Christian world-chronicles
has never lacked zealous admirers, and industrious use .has con
stantly been made of it. It rendered substantial service to the Father
of Church History; in modified and often even in corrupted forms
it has dominated all Byzantine historiography. - - He dedicated to
Alexander Severus 3 an extensive encyclopaedia of the natural sciences,
medicine, magic, agriculture, naval and military warfare, and gave
it the curious title of « Embroidered Girdles » fxsffroij. Photius
says4 that it included fourteen books, but Suidas5 gives the number
of books as twenty-four. Of this encyclopaedia many fragments, some
of them not unimportant, have reached us, especially through later
and more special works, e. g. the collection of Greek tacticians, the
compilation of excerpts from writers on agriculture known as Geoponica,
and the manual of veterinary science known as Hippiatrica. While
the vulgar superstition they exhibit, and the obscenities that swarm
in the fragment on Aphrodisiac secrets, are well-calculated to lessen
our respect for Africanus, they do not justify us in suspecting the
authenticity of his works, or attempting to divide the authorship of
the xsffToi and the Chronographia.

The existing collections of the fragments of the Chronographia (Mignc,
PG., x. 63 — 94; Routh , Reliquiae Sacrae [2] ii. 238 — 309) are unsatis
factory. A new collection is expected from If. Gelzer (1. c.). The first

1 Sync. Chronogr. ed. Dindorf, i. 676. * Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 31, 2.

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 31, i; cf. Geoponica, 1. i, praef. : xsffTol ^ i:a.pddo$a,

4 Bibl. Cod. 34. 5 Lex., 1. c.

1 1 *

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

part of this work of Gelzer deals with the Chronography of Africanus (supple
mentary matter injahrb. f. prot. Theologie [1881], vii. 376— 378); the second
part (1885 — 1898) treats of his Greek and Latin, Syriac and Armenian
successors. There is no satisfactory collection of the fragments of the «Em-
broidered Girdles ». They are enumerated by Gelzer ; 1. c., i. 12 — 17, and
Preuschen, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 508—511. There is
an English translation of the literary remains of Africanus by Salmond, in
Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1886), vi. 146 — 153.

3. LETTERS. DOUBTFUL AND SPURIOUS WORKS. — An entire letter
of Africanus to Origen has been preserved, in which he opposes the
genuineness and canonicity of the history of Susanna in the Book of
Daniel (§ 39, 10), also fragments of another to a certain Aristides1 in
which, on the basis of ancient traditions, he undertakes to harmonize
the apparent antilogies in the genealogies of Our Lord as given in
St. Matthew and St. Luke. He makes Jacob (Mt. i. 16) the natural
father, and Heli (Lk. iii. 23) the legal father of Joseph. Both letters
are mentioned by Eusebius2, and are eloquent monuments of an
acute and searching criticism far beyond the ordinary contemporary
level. It is very doubtful that he wrote commentaries on the Gospels
or on the New Testament, as the Syriac writers (Dionysius Bar Salibi
and Ebedjesu) maintain. It is owing to an interchange of names
(Africanus for Aphroditiamus) that a ridiculous story of miraculous
occurrences in Persia at the time of the birth of Christ has been
attributed to our chronographer 3. Nor can he be the author of the
Passio S. Symphorosae et septein filiorum eius 4.

Both letters of Africanus are in Routh, 1. c., ii. 225 — 237. See Fr.
Spitta, Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides, kritisch untersucht und
hergestellt, Halle, 1877. For the writings falsely attributed to Africanus
see in particular Gelzer, 1. c., i. 18 f. (Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. vii. 376 f.);
Preuschen, 1. c., p. 513. There is an English translation of the letter to
Origen in Ante-Nicene Fathers, (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 385 f.

4. ALEXANDER OF JERUSALEM. -- Alexander, the founder of the theo
logical library of Jerusalem (§ 37), was for a brief period bishop in Cappa-
docia (Eus., Hist. eccl. vi. n, r — 2). About 212 he became coadjutor to
the aged bishop Narcissus of Jerusalem (ib. vi. 8, 7), and succeeded him
shortly after in that office which he held until his glorious death as a martyr
in 250 (ib. vi. 39, 2 — 3). Eusebius mentions many of his letters; one
was written from his prison in Cappadocia to the Christians of Antioch,
congratulating them on the choice of their new bishop, Asclepiades (ib. vi.
n, 5 — 6). Another was written at Jerusalem, in the life-time of Narcissus,
as an exhortation to the Christians of Antinonia in Egypt (ib. vi. n, 3).
A third letter was written to Origen (ib. vi. 14, 8 — 9). Both Alexander
and bishop Theoctistus of Csesarea wrote to bishop Demetrius of Alex
andria in defence of lay-preaching (ib. vi. 19, 17 — 18). St. Jerome (De
viris ill., c. 62) seems to have known another letter of Alexander to Demetrius
concerning Origen's ordination to the priesthood. For the «testimonia»
concerning Alexander see Migne, PG., x. 203 — 206 and Routh, 1. c. , ii.

1 Migne, PG., x. 51 — 64. 2 Hist, eccl., vi. 31, i 3.

3 Migne, PG., x. 97—108. 4 Ib., x. 93—98.

§ 44- PAUL OF SAMOSATA, MALCHION OF ANTIOCH, LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA. 1 6$

159 — 179; Harnack, 1. c., i. 505 — 507: cf. ii. i, 221 — 223. For an English
translation of the fragments of Alexander see Salmoitd , in Ante-Nicene
Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 153 — 154.

5. BERYLLUS OF BOSTRA. -- About 244 Origen converted this bishop
from Monarchianism to the teachings of the Church (§ 39, 7). Beryllus
left letters and treatises (Eus., Hist. eccl. vi. 20, 2), also letters to Origen
(Hier., De viris ill., c. 60).

§ 44. Paul of Samosata, Malchion of Antioch, Lucian of Samosata.

i. PAUL OF SAMOSATA. - - He was a «ducenarius» of Zenobia,
queen of Palmyra, and from 260 held the see of Antioch. Apparently
he committed to writing his teaching that Christ was by nature only
an ordinary man1. Vincent of Lerins2 was acquainted with «Opu-
scula» of Paul, and a later Greek writer has left us some Christo-
logical fragments of his discourses to Sabinus (npbs Sajftvov

Mai, Script, vet. nova coll. (1833), vii. i 68 sq. ; Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae
(2) iii. 329 f. See G. D. Rossini , L'impresa di Palmira e Paolo Samo-
sateno, in Miscellanea di Storia Eccles. (1902 — 1903), i. 109 — 133.

2. MALCHION OF ANTIOCH. - - In consequence of the heresy of
Paul three synods were held at Antioch from 264 — 269. It was only
in the last of these synods that Malchion, a presbyter of Antioch and
a famous teacher of rhetoric in that city, was able to convict the
cunning sophist and to tear the mask from him. We have still some
fragments of the discussion between Paul and Malchion, taken down
by shorthand writers3. Paul was deposed and excommunicated; in a
long encyclical letter the synod made known to the entire Catholic
Church the history and the conclusion of the whole affair. This
encyclical letter, according to Jerome4, was the work of Malchion;
some fragments of it are extant in Eusebius5 and in other writers.

, For the remnants of the encyclical and the discussion see Migne, PG.
x. 247 — 260, and Routh3 1. c. iii. 300 — 316. Another fragment of the
discussion is in Pitra, Analecta sacra iii. 600 f. ; cf. the Syriac fragments,
ib. iv. 183- 1 86 423 — 425. There is reason to doubt the genuineness of a
letter written to Paul «before his deposition*, by six bishops: Hymenaeus
(of Jerusalem), Theophilus, Theotecnus (of Csesarea in Palestine), Maximus
(of Bostra), Proclus and Bolanus (Mansi, Ss. Concil. Coll. i. 1033 — 1040;
Routh, 1. c. , iii. 289 — 299). These six bishops are mentioned by Eu
sebius (Hist, eccl., vii. 30, 2) among those who forwarded the encyclical
letter. Cf. P. Pape , Die Synoden von Antiochien 264 — 269 (Progr.),
Berlin, 1903. For an English translation of the fragments of Malchion see
Salmondy in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 168 — 172.

3. LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA. -- Lucian, a native of Samosata, pres
byter of Antioch and founder of the Antiochene exegetical school,
shared the views of Paul and was probably excommunicated at the

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 27, 2. 2 Common, c. 25, al. 35.

3 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 29, 2. 4 De viris ill., c. 71.

5 Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 30.

1 66 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

same time as the latter. Although he returned to the communion
of the Church, he did not cease to teach a decidedly subordinationist
theology, and is the true father of Arianism. His martyrdom at
Nicomedia (Jan. 7., 312) made reparation for his want of conformity
to the teachings of the Church1. Like Hesychius (§ 41, 5) Lucian
made a critical revision of the Septuagint and a recension of the
text of the New Testament, or at least of the Gospels2. In the
fourth century this revision of the Septuagint was still in general
use through all the churches from Antioch to Constantinople 3 ; manu
scripts of it have survived to our day. Jerome4 had read other
works of Lucian : De fide lib e Hi and Breves ad nonnullos e pistol ae.
The Chronicon Paschale* cites the conclusion of a letter of Lucian
sent from Nicomedia to the Christians of Antioch. The statement
of Athanasius6 and others that a profession of faith adopted by an
Antiochene synod in 341 was the work of Lucian, is very questionable.

The edition of the Pentateuch and the historical books of the Jewish
canon, published at Gottingen in 1883 by P. de Lagarde , was based on
codices that C. Vercellone had recognized as correlated, and that A. M.
Ceriani and Fr. Field had shown to be copies of Lucian's revision of the
Septuagint. The Septuagint text in the Complutensian Polyglot is based
on two of these codices. For more special information see the manuals
of Introduction to the Old and New Testament. The fragments of other
works of Lucian are in Routh, 1. c., iv. i — 17. Among them are an
Apology for Christianity, prepared at Nicomedia on the eve of his death,
and taken from Rufinus' paraphrase of the Church History of Eusebius
(ix. 6); also an oral exposition of Job ii. 9 — 10, taken from the commen
tary on Job by Julian of Halicarnassus. The hypothesis of F. Kattenbusch
(Das apostolische Symbol, Leipzig, 1894, i. 252—273 392—395) that the
baptismal symbol of the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 41) is the work of
Lucian, is most probably untenable. For Lucian see in general, Acta
SS. Jan., Venice, 1734, i. 357—365, and Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl.
Lit. i. 526—531; cf. Stokes, in Diet, of Christ. Biography, London, 1882,
iii. 748 — 749, also (Cardinal) Newman's «History of the Arians».

§ 45. Pamphilus of Csesarea and the Dialogus de recta in Deum fide.

i. PAMPHILUS. - - The biography of St. Pamphilus in three books,
by his disciple and friend Eusebius, has perished; only references
to it and some quotations are known7. But in his Church History
and in his two works on the martyrs of Palestine, Eusebius has handed
down to posterity tributes of affectionate remembrance for Pamphilus.
He was born of noble parents at Berytus in Phoenicia, studied theo
logy § at Alexandria under Pierius (§41, 2), took up his permanent
residence at Caesarea in Palestine, was ordained priest, opened in

1 Eus., Hist, eccl., viii. 13, 2; ix. 6, 3. 2 Hier> praef- in Evangi

* Hier., Praef. in Paral. * De viris ill., c. 77.

Migne, PG., xcii. 689. 6 Ep. de syn. c. 23.

Eus., De mart. Palestinae, c. II, 3; Hier., Adv. Rufin., i. 9.
8 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 118 119.

§ 45- PAMPHILUS OF C^SAREA AND THE DIALOGUS DE RECTA IN DEUM FIDE. l6/

that city a theological school, and in the persecution of Maximinus
suffered martyrdom there by decapitation (309), apparently after a
long and tedious imprisonment. The greatest of his literary merits
is the zeal he displayed for the enrichment and enlargement of the
library of Csesarea (§ 37). While in prison he wrote, with the help
of his friend Eusebius, an apology for Origen (aTroAofia bxkp "Qptyivouc,)
in five books to which, after the martyr's death, Eusebius added
a sixth. The work was dedicated to the confessors in the mines or
quarries of Palestine, and was an attempt to defend the theology of
the Alexandrine from the charge of heterodoxy that many brought
against it. Only the first of its six books has been preserved, and
that in a not very reliable version by Rufinus of Aquileja. Pho-
tius speaks about the whole work 1. The latter says quite posi
tively that Pamphilus composed the first five books2. In view of
this testimony the statement of St. Jerome3 that the Arian Eusebius
was the true author of the work, is manifestly inexact and awakens
a suspicion of bias. Gennadius wrongly says 4 that Rufinus translated
a work of Pamphilus Adversum mathematico s ; he simply misunderstood
the reasons given by Rufinus5 for his translation of the first book
of the Apology. Finally, in his biography of Pamphilus, Eusebius
made mention of letters of Pamphilus to his friends6.

For the «testimonia antiquorum» concerning Pamphilus see Preuschen,
in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. i. 543 — 550. The Passio Ss. Pamphili
et sociorum (Migne, PG. x. 1533 — 1550) is a fragment of the larger work
of Eusebius on the Martyrs of Palestine, and has been re-edited by H. De-
lehayc, in Analecta Bollandiana (1897), xvi. 129 — 139. The translation by
Rufinus of the first book of the Apology for Origen is found in the edi
tions of Origen (Migne , PG., xvii. 521 — 616). It is also (incomplete) in
Routh , Reliquiae Sacrae (2) iii. 485 — 512; iv. 339 — 392. For traces of
biblical manuscripts written or corrected by Pamphilus cf. W. Bousset, in
Texte und Untersuchungen (1894), xi. 4, 45 — 73.

2. DIALOGUS DE RECTA IN DEUM FIDE. — There have come down
to us in Greek and Latin texts, under the name of Origen, five dia
logues against the Gnostics. Their Greek title is dial^ic, 'Ada/jtavTtou
roil) xai 'Qptflvoug xspi r^c SIQ ttsov opftiJQ "xiGizto^, while in the only
manuscript that has reached us of the Latin version made by Rufinus
they are called Libri Adamantii Origenis adversus haereticos numero
quinque. In these dialogues Adamantius appears as the protagonist
of Christian faith. In the first two he attacks the doctrine of three
(or two) principles (apyjj.i) as held by the Marcionites, Megethius and
Marcus. In the last three dialogues he combats the theses of Marinus,
a follower of Bardesanes. Marinus had maintained that the devil or

1 Bibl. Cod. 1 1 8.

2 Cf. Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 33, 4, and Hier., De viris ill., c. 75.

3 Adv. Rufin., i. 8 ; al. 4 De viris ill., c. 17.
5 Apol., i. ii. 6 Hier., Adv. Ruf., i. Q.

1 68 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

evil could not have been created by God, that the Logos could not
take a human body, that the body could not rise again. In the
fourth dialogue he interrupts for a while the discussion with Marinus,
in order to dispute with Droserius and Valens, followers of Valentinian,
concerning the origin of evil. The Christian disputants had chosen as
arbiter Eutropius, a learned heathen philosopher; he considers him
self obliged to yield the palm of victory to Adamantius. The author
of these dialogues is evidently very well-skilled in dialectic and theo
logy. Zahn has shown by a comparison of the Greek with the Latin
text that in general the latter, though a translation, represents with
fidelity the original work, while very plainly the Greek text has been
worked over quite thoroughly. Internal evidence shows that the work
was composed about 300 — 3 1 3 ; the revision must have taken place
between 330 and 337. The author can no longer be recognized, but
it is probable that he lived at or near Antioch. The erroneous
attribution of the work to Origen, accepted by Basil the Great and
Gregory of Nazianzus1, is owing to a confusion of the Church's
theological protagonist with the author of the dialogue. Very pro
bably, indeed, the latter meant to indicate by the name Adamantius
no other but Origen (cf. § 39, i). At the same time his inten
tion was to put forth the famous Alexandrine only as sponsor for
the doctrine of the dialogue, not to designate him as the author of
the work.

The Greek text has come down in seven (according to von Bakhuyzen]
codices that go back to a single archetype. The editio princeps is that
of J. R. Wetstein, Basle, 1674, reprinted in later editions of Origen (Migne,
PG.. xi. 1711—1884). The Latin version was first published by C. P.
Caspari, Kirchenhistorische Anecdota, Christiania, 1883, i. 1 — 129 (cf. iii— iv).
For further details see Th. Zahn, in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. (1887 — 1888),
ix. 193 — 239, and Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), ii. 2, 419—426.
There is a new edition by W. H. van dc Sande Bakhuyzen, Leipzig, 1901,
in Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte.

§ 46. The Didascalia apostolorum.

Even before the Apostolic Church-Ordinance (§ 42) had been
adopted in Egypt, there circulated in Syria or Palestine a pseudo-
apostolic work of similar character, but much larger in size. Its
subject-matter was, likewise, Christian morality, the constitution of
the Church, and Christian discipline. The original Greek text has
apparently perished. In 1854 P. de Lagarde edited an ancient
Syriac version, and recently Hauler has made known notable frag
ments of an early Latin version. These fragments confirm the con
clusion of Funk that in general the Syriac version, apart from its
peculiar division into chapters, faithfully represents the original Greek.
The title (lacking in the Latin version) reads in Syriac: « Didascalia,

1 Philocal. Orig. c. 24, 8.

§ 46. THE DIDASCALIA APOSTOLORUM. 1 69

i. e. the Catholic Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles and holy disciples
of our Redeemer ». It opens with general exhortatory advice to Christ
ians (c. I in Syriac) and more particularly to those in certain states,
especially married persons (cc. 2 — 3). Then follow provisions con
cerning the qualifications for the office of bishop, his duties and his
rights (cc. 4 — 9), on lawsuits among Christians (cc. 10 — n), on the
liturgical assemblies (cc. 12 — 13), on widows, deacons and deacones
ses (cc. 14 — 1 6), on the care of the poor and in particular of
orphans (cc. 17 — 18), on the martyrs (cc. 19 — 20), on fasting (c. 21),
on the discipline of children (c. 22). The last chapters contain a
warning against heresies (cc. 23 — 25) and against Jewish or Judaiz-
ing practices (c. 26). There is no inner cohesion between the
chapters; even in each chapter the thought of the writer does not
progress in an orderly way. According to c. 24 the work was
composed by the Apostles at Jerusalem , on the occasion of the
apostolic council and during the first days after the same. Funk
has shown that it was written in Syria or Palestine during the first
half of the third century. The sources at the disposition of the
writer were the Holy Scriptures (in c. 7 he even quotes the story of
the woman taken in adultery, John vii. 53 to viii. n), the Didache,
the collection of the Ignatian Epistles , the Dialogue of Justin the
Martyr, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, the fourth book of the
Sibylline Oracles, and perhaps the « Memorabilia » of Hegesippus. The
work was highly esteemed and much used in Syria and Palestine.
Early in the fifth century it was worked over in Syria at considerable
length, and took its actual shape in the first six books of the Apo
stolic Constitutions (§75, i).

The Syriac version was edited from a codex of the ninth or tenth
century by P. Botticher (P. dc Lagardc), Didascalia Apostolorum syriace,
Leipzig, 1854. At the same time, in the work of Chr. C. J. Bunsen,
Analecta Ante-Nicaena, London, 1854, ii, Botticher undertook to recon
struct the original Greek of the Didascalia (225 — 338: Didascalia purior).
For this purpose he used the Syriac version and the first six books of the
Apostolic Constitutions ; the six books were so printed as to distinguish by
different kinds of type the original text from the additions to it (45 — 2245.
In many details, however, both these recensions of Botticher are untrust
worthy- cf. Funk, Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen , Rottenburg, 1891,
pp. 40 — 50. On Didascaliae apostolorum fragmenta Veronensia Latina
ed. E. Hauler, Leipzig, 1900, i, see Funk, 1. c. , pp. 28—75. For tne
dependence of the Didascalia on the Didache see C. Holzhcy, in Compte
rendu du IVe Congres scientifique internat. des Catholiques, Fribourg
(vSwitzerland), 1898, Section I, 249—277; on its relations to the Ignatian
Epistles see Holzhey , in TheoJ. Quartalschr. (1898), Ixxx. 380—396.
F. X. Funk, La date de la Didascalie des Apotres, in Revue d'histoire
ecclesiastique (1901), ii. 798 — 809; here he assigns it to the second half
of the third century. P. Corssen , Zur lateinischen Didascalia Aposto
lorum, in Zeitschr. fur neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1900), i. 339—343.
In the Canoniste Contemporain (1900 — 1902) F. Nau gives a French

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

version of the Didascalia (reprinted, Paris, 1902). A. Jakoby , Ein bisher
unbeachteter apokrypher Bericht iiber die Taufe Jesu, nebst Beitragen
zur Geschichte der Didascalia der zwolf Apostel, und Erlauterungen zu
den Darstelhmgen der Taufe Jesu, Straftburg, 1902; C. Holzhey , Dio-
nysius der Grofte und die Didascalia, in Theol.-praktische Monatschr.
(1901), xi. 515—523; cf. § 40, 4. The Didascalia Apostolorum, edited
from a Mesopotamian manuscript with various readings and collations from
other mss. by M. Dunlop Gibson, I: Syriac text; II: an English version
(Horae Semiticae), Cambridge, 1903. See the critique of Funk, in Theol.
Quartalschr. (1903), Ixxxv. 195 — 202. A. Baumstark , Die Urgestalt der
arabischen Didascalia der Apostel, in Oriens Christianus (1903), pp. 201
to 208. For a German translation and commentary see Achelis and Flem-
ming, Die syrische Didascalia, iibersetzt und erklart, in Texte und Unter-
suchungen, Leipzig, 1904, x, 2, vm — 388. Funk has also published what
will in all likelihood ever remain the standard edition of the « Didascalia
et Constitutiones Apostolorum », 2 voll., Paderborn, 1905.

C. WRITERS OF ASIA MINOR.
§ 47. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder- Worker).

I. HIS LIFE. — In his panegyric on Origen (cc. 5 — 6) St. Gregory
gives us reliable information concerning his own early life. Other
details are gathered from Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. Jerome,
Rufinus and other writers. His life in Greek by St. Gregory of
Nyssa * is of little historical value because of its highly legendary
character. Untrustworthy, too, is an ancient anonymous life in
Syriac, that has come down to us in a sixth-century manuscript,
and is in its contents very closely related to the Greek life. Both
these lives may go back to an earlier Greek original (Ryssel), or
both may represent the same stage of oral tradition (Koetschau).
Gregory, in youth called Theodore2, was born about 213 at Neo-
caesarea in Pontus, of a very noble heathen family. He devoted
himself to the study of rhetoric and Roman law. In order to
perfect themselves in the latter study, both he and his younger
brother Athenodorus were on the point of entering the law schools
of Berytus in Phoenicia, when domestic circumstances altered per
force their resolution, and they betook themselves to Csesarea in
Palestine. Here, very probably in 233, they became acquainted with
Origen, and were fascinated by his teaching. Gradually all thought
of Berytus and jurisprudence vanished from the minds of the im
pressionable youths. They clung thenceforth to the admirable teacher
who had won them over to the studies of philosophy and theology,
and at the same time converted them to Jesus Christ. Eusebius
tells us3 that Gregory and his brother spent five years at Caesarea.
On their separation from Origen, in 238, the former delivered a
public panegyric or formal profession of gratitude in the presence of

1 Migne, PG., xlvi. 893-958- 2 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 30. 3 Ib.

§ 47- ST- GREGORY THAUMATURGUS (THE WONDER-WORKER). I/ 1

his master1. Shortly afterwards they were both made bishops in
Pontus 2 ; Gregory in particular, became the first bishop of his native
city of Neoc^esarea. The two biographies already referred relate
a long series of miraculous happenings, to which Gregory owes his
later title of Wonder-Worker (o ftaufjLatoupfOQ). This very early growth
of legend testifies more forcibly than any historical document could
to his uncommonly superior personality and his far-reaching successful
labors. Gregory and Athenodorus took part in the Antiochene synod
(264 — 265) that condemned Paul of Samosata3; they may also have
been present at the two following synods held for the same purpose4.
Suidas says5 that Gregory died in the reign of Aurelian (270 — 275).
Before his death he had completely converted his native city, and all
Pontus continued to reverence his memory6.

The Syriac biography of Gregory was first published in a German
version by V. Ryssel } in Theol. Zeitschr. aus der Schweiz (1894), xi. 228
to 254. Later, the Syriac text was published from the same codex, by
P. Bedjan, in Acta martyrum et sanctorum (1896), vi. 83 — 106. For the
relations between the Greek and Syriac text see P. Koetschau, in Zeitschr.
fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1898), xli. 211 — 250, and H. Hilgcnfeld, ib.,
452 — 456. For the latest researches on the life of Gregory cf. Ryssel,
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Leipzig, 1880, pp. i — 22, and Koetschau, in his
edition of the Panegyric on Origen , Freiburg, 1894 (Sammlung ausgew.
kirchen- und dogmengeschichtl. Quellenschriften 9), pp. v— xxi.

2. LITERARY LABORS. - - Taken up with pastoral cares, Gregory
wrote but little, as far as we know; what remains from his pen is
mostly of an occasional character, and was called forth by practical
needs. However, even in antiquity the labors of others were attributed
to him and sometimes with fraudulent purpose.

The collected writings of Gregory were first edited by G. Voss, Mainz,
1604; then by Fronton du Due, Paris, 1622. They are in Gallandi, Bibl.
vet. Patr. iii. 377 — 469 (cf. iii. Proleg. , xxv— xxix; xiv. app. 119), and in
Migne, PG. , x. 963 — 1232. Several writings and fragments, partly un
known, have been recently edited by P. de Lagarde and P. Martin, from
Syriac and Armenian sources; they bear the name of Gregory, and an
account of those printed before 1880 may be read in the careful study of
Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus (cf. additional material in Jahrb. f. protest.
Theol. 1881, vii. 565 sq.). There is an English translation of the literary remains
of Gregory by Sahnond, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 9 — 74.

3. GENUINE WORKS. - The following works may and ought to
be recognized as genuine writings : a) The Panegyric on Origen, deliver
ed at Caesarea in 238, at the time of his leave-taking. It is entitled
in the editions7: SIQ 'Qptfiwqv 7Zf)OG<pcovrjTLy.bc, xa} Tiavyfupixb^ /.oyoQ,
but is called by the author (c. 3, 31; 4, 40) AO^OQ yaptaTypioQ, or
« discourse of thanksgiving ». The thanks of the speaker are directed

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 65. 2 Eus., Hist, eccl., vi. 30.

3 Ib., vii. 28, i. 4 Ib., vii. 28, 2. 5 Lexicon, s. v. Gregor.

r> Basil. M., De Spir. Sancto, c. 29, 74. 7 Migne, PG., x. 1049 — 1104.

1/2

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

first to God, the Giver of all good, then to the guardian angel who
accompanied Gregory and Athenodorus to Csesarea, and finally to
the great teacher who inspired both with a love for (Christian) philo
sophy. A strong current of living and affectionate emotion pulsates
through the entire discourse. Its diction is comparatively pure and
noble, in spite of "a certain straining after rhetorical effect, b) The
Creed of Gregory (sx&emQ rye, mffrscj^J *. According to the legendary
life by St. Gregory of Nyssa 2 this formula of faith was revealed to him
in a vision by the Apostle John, at the command of the Mother of
God. Caspari has shown that it was composed between 260 and 270.
It is a brief but clear and precise exposition of the Christian doctrine
of the Trinity, c) The so-called Canonical Epistle (intaroM] xavovcxy ;
with the scholia of the canonists Balsamon and Zonaras) 3. It was
written to solve the doubts of a bishop as to the proper treatment of
those Christians who had been guilty of infractions of Christian discipline
and morality during the raids of the Goths and Boradi (Borani) into
Pontus and Bithynia. The document is of importance first for the
history of ancient ecclesiastical discipline, then as affording evidence
of the mildness and tact of Gregory. Draseke thinks it was com
posed in the autumn of 254. d) The Metaphrase of Ecclesiastes
(perdypamQ sl^ rbv ixxhjmaarqv HO^O/JLW^TOQJ 4 , a paraphrastic ren
dering of the Greek text of the sacred book. The manuscripts
usually attribute it to St. Gregory of Nazianzus, but St. Jerome5
and Rufinus6 declare it to be a work of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus.
e) The work «To Theopompus on the divine incapacity and capa
city of suffering », extant in Syriac only, a philosophical colloquy as
to whether the divine immunity from suffering carries with it neces
sarily an indifference to the affairs of mankind. The contents of
this work suggest no reason to doubt its genuineness; it was pro
bably composed before his consecration as bishop of Neocsesarea.
Theopompus, otherwise unknown, is described (c. 6) as a follower
of «Isocrates», whom Draseke identifies with Socrates, a Gnostic
and a Marcionite-. The latter taught that from all eternity God
was essentially in a state of absolute quietude and nowise con
cerned himself about mankind, f) Lost writings, especially a dialogue
with ^Elianus (npbz Alhavbv dtdX^iq) intended to win over the latter
to the Christian faith; it seems to have dwelt particularly on the
Christian teaching concerning God 8; also some lost epistolae* of
which we have no further knowledge.

1 Migne, PG., x. 983—988.

2 Greg. Nyss., Vita S. Thaumat. ; Migne, PG., xlvi 909 ff
Migne, PG., x. 1019-1048. * Ib., x. 987-1018
De viris ill., c. 65; Comm. in Eccl. ad iv. 13 ff.

6 Hist. eccl. Eus., vii. 25.

" Dial, de recta in Deum fide, sect, i ; Migne, PG., xi. 1729.
Basil. Magn., Ep. 210, 5. o Hier^ De viris m ; c

§ 47- ST- GREGORY THAUMATURGUS (THE WONDER-WORKER). 1/3

a) The «Discourse of Thanksgiving » has reached us only by means of
the manuscripts in which it is joined to the work of Origen against Celsus
(§ 39» 6). For excellent separate editions we are indebted to y. A. Bengel,
Stuttgart, 1722, and P. Koetschau. A German version of the Panegyric, the
Creed and the Canonical Epistle was made by J. Margraf, Kempten, 1875
(Bibl. der Kirchenvater). - - b) The Creed has come down to us in Greek
through a work of Gregory of Nyssa (1. c.), and in many manuscripts ; we
possess it also in a Syriac version and in two early Latin versions, one by
Rufinus of Aquileja, the other anonymous. For all these texts and an
exhaustive demonstration of the genuineness and integrity of this Creed
see C. P. Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols
und der Glaubensregel, Christiania, 1879, PP- 1—64. The Syriac text is
also in Pitra , Analecta sacra (1883), iv. 81 345 f. -- c) The Canonical
Epistle is found in Routh , Reliquiae Sacrae (2) iii. 251 — 283; in Pitra,
luris eccles. Graecorum historia et monumenta, Rome, 1864, i. 562 — 566,
and in Drdseke , Jahrb. f. protest. Theologie (1881), vii. 724 — 756. -
d) For the Metaphrase of Ecclesiastes cf. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus,
pp. 27 — 29. - - e) The work «To Theopompus» is printed, in P. de La-
garde, Analecta Syriaca, Leipzig and London, pp. 46 — 64, from a Syriac
codex of the sixth century; a German version is given by Ryssel, 1. c.,
pp. 71 — 99 (cf. pp. 118 — 124 137 f. 150 — 157). Another edition of the
Syriac text is that of P. Martin, in Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 103—120
363 — 376. Cf. Drdseke, Gesammelte Patrist. Untersuchungen, Altona and
Leipzig, 1889, pp. 162 — 1 68. -- f) The Arabic fragment of a Sermo de
Trinitate (Migne, PG., x. 1123 — 1126; Ryssel, 1. c., 43 — 46), in which Mai
thought he saw a fragment of the dialogue with /Elianus, is spurious.

4. DUBIOUS WORKS. — Other writings or fragments await a more
thorough study of their contents and character: a) The brief treatise
on the soul addressed to Tatian (/Jrfoc, xspaAauodqQ xepl <p'J7Jj±
Tipoc, Tanavuv) 1. It discusses the existence and nature of the soul,
and expressly prescinds from scriptural proof. In modern times it
has been customary to look on it as spurious, even as of mediaeval
origin. Recently a Syriac version has been discovered in a codex of
the seventh century; it is also possible that Procopius of Gaza (about
465 — 528) cites the Greek text as a work of our Gregory, b) We owe
to P. Martin the knowledge of five homilies, preserved only in Armenian
and attributed to Gregory. They are : Homilia in nativitatem Christi.
Sermo de incarnatione , Laus S. Dei genitricis et semper Virginis
Mariae, Panegyricus sermo in S. Dei genitricem et semper Virginem
Mariam, Sermo panegyricus in honorem S. Stephani protomartyris.
The last four are certainly products of a much later age. Loofs
concedes the first to be a genuine work of Gregory, moved by-
numerous points of contact with the work «To Theopompus».
Conybeare translated into English, also from the Armenian, a sixth
homily, and holds it to be a genuine discourse of Gregory, c) A multi
tude of loose fragments, mostly spurious and insignificant; here and
there, however, a genuine phrase may lie hidden among them.

1 Mig?ie, PG., x. 1137 — 1146.

174 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

a) See A. Smith Lewis, in Studia Sinaitica, London, 1894, i. 19 — 26,
for a Syriac version of the treatise «on the soul». It lacks only the intro
duction; the codex is of the seventh century. A German version is given
by Ryssely in Rhein. Mus. f. Philol., new series (1896), li. 4 — 9, cf. 318—320.
The "testimony of Procopius is treated by Draseke, in Zeitschr. fiir wissen-
schaftl. Theol. (1896), xxxix. 166 — 169, and Zttr Gregor von Neocaesareas
Schrift iiber die Seele, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1901), xliv.
87 — 100. — b) The five Armenian homilies are in Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv.
134 — 145 156 — 169 (Armenian); 386—396 404 — 412 (Latin). Cf. Loofs,
in Theol. Literaturzeitung (1884), pp. 551- — 553. The Armenian homily was
translated into English by F. C. Conybeare , in The Expositor (1896), i.
161 — 173. S. Haidacher , Zu den Homilien des Gregorius von Antiochia
tind des Gregorius Thaumaturgus, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol. (1901), xxv.
367 — 369. -- c) For the scattered fragments of the writings of Gregory
see Ryssels Gregorius Thaumaturgus, pp. 43 — 59, and for the Greek and
Syriac fragments, in particular, see Pitra, 1. c., iii. 589 — 595; iv. 133 386,
and Loofs, 1. c., 550 f.

5. SPURIOUS WORKS. — A number of works have been erroneously
attributed to Gregory, a) The Syriac work «To Philagrius on con-
substantiality » is simply, as was seen by Draseke, the Letter npbq
E'jdfpiov fjLOva%bv ^spl $£0rjyn>£, published among the works of St. Gre
gory of Nazianzus1 and St. Gregory of Nyssa2, and probably not
written before 350—400. b) The «Sectional Confession of Faith, y xard
/jtlpoQ xlffrtQ3, an exposition of doctrine concerning the Blessed Trinity
and the Incarnation of the Son, is not a work of Gregory. Caspari has
proved that it was composed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (about 380),
and circulated by the Apollinarists under the safe cover of Gregory's
reputation, c) The « Twelve Chapters on Faith », xspdlata xepl nla-sctx;
dcodsxa*. This little work proposes to expound the orthodox faith
concerning the Incarnation. It is anti-Apollinarist (cc. 10 — n) and
was probably not written before the end of the fourth century.
d) Five Greek homilies — three on the Annunciation 5, one on Epi
phany6 and one on the Feast of All Saints7 - - are all spurious.

a) The Syriac text of the work «To Philagrius » is found in de Lagarde,
Anal. Syr. pp. 43-46, and Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 100—103. A German
version is given in Ryssely Gregorius Thaumaturgus, pp. 65 — 70 (cf. pp. 100
to 118 135 ft". 147 ff.), and a Latin version in Pitra, 1. c., iv. 360 — 363.
For the origin of that work see (in opposition to Ryssely in Jahrb. fur
protest. Theol. [1881], vii. 565 — 573) Draseke, Gesammelte Patrist. Unter-
suchungen (1889), pp. 103—162. b) The «Sectional Confession of

Faith » may also be found in de Lagarde' s Edition of the Greek work of
Titus Bostrensis «Against the Manichaeans», Berlin, 1859, pp. 103 — 113.
For a literal Syriac version see de Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, pp. 31 -42,
and Pitra, I. c. , iv. 82—93 346—356 (Syriac and Latin). Cf. Caspari,
Alte und neue Quellen, pp. 65—146. -- c) For fragments of a Syriac

1 Migne, PG., xxxvii. 383. 2 Ib., xlvi. 1 101 — 1108.

3 Ib., x. 1103—1124. * Ib., x. 1127—1136.

5 Ib., x. 1145—1178. e Ib ; x II77_I190>

7 Ib., x. 1197 — 1206.

§ 48. ST. METHODIUS OF OLYMPUS. 1/5

version of the Twelve Chapters etc. cf. de Lagarde , 1. c. , pp. 65 — 67,
and Pitra , 1. c., iv. 95 — 100 357 — 360. Concerning these «Chapters»
consult (against Drdseke, 1. c. pp. 78 — 102) Funk, Kirchengeschichtl. Ab-
handlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), "• 329 — 338; ^r- Lauchert , in
Theol. Quartalschr. (1900), Ixxxii. 395 — 418. -- d) The first of the «Five
Homilies» is extant also in Syriac (Pitra, 1. c., iv. 122 — 127 377—381) and
in Armenian (ib., pp. 145 — 150 396 — 400), the second also in Armenian
(ib., pp. 150—156 400—404); there is also (ib., pp. 127—133 381—386)
a Syriac text of the fourth homily. The arguments of Drdseke, in Jahrb.
fiir protest. Theol. (1884), x. 657 ff., in favor of the authorship of Apol-
linaris of Laodicea for the first two and the fourth homilies are not
conclusive.

6. ATHENODORUS. - - In his Sacra Parallela St. John Damascene attri
butes without further identification three fragments of a work irepl ejJpaifffiou
to a certain Athenodorus. It may have been written by Athenodorus, the
brother of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Cf. K. Holl, in Texte und Unter
suchungen, xx, new series (1899), v- 2> l6i-

7. FIRMILIAN OF c^ESAREA (Cappadocia). -- About the middle of the
third century he appears as one of the most highly esteemed bishops of
the East (Em., Hist, eccl, vii. 30, 3—5). His death is placed in 269. We
have from his pen a long letter to St. Cyprian of Carthage relative to the
Western controversy concerning the baptism of heretics, in a Latin version.
It is printed among the letters of Cyprian (no. 75, ed. Hartel, ii. 810 to
827). In this letter he gives his unreserved approval to the position of
St. Cyprian, declares invalid all baptism by heretics, and denounces with
passionate invective the judgment of Pope Stephen. J. Ernst has shown,
in Zeitschrift fiir kath. Theol. (1894), xviii. 209—259; (1896), xx. 364—367,
that it is impossible to defend the interpolation-hypothesis put forward by
O. Ritschl , in Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche,
Gottingen, 1885, pp. 126 — 134. St. Basil the Great mentions (De Spir.
Sancto, cc. 29 74) other works (AOYOI) ofFirmilian. Cf. B. Bossue, in Acta
SS. Oct. (1867), xii. 470—510.

§ 48. St. Methodius of Olympus.

I. HIS LIFE. — It is hidden in almost complete obscurity. In his
Church History, Eusebius does not' honor with a mention this enemy
of Origen. We know only that he was bishop of Olympus in Lycia
and that he died about 311 a martyr's death in the persecution of
Maximinus Daza1. The rumor in St. Jerome2 that he was at first
bishop of Olympus and was then translated to Tyre (in Phoenicia),
also the later tradition in Leontius of Byzantium3 that he was bishop
of Patara (in Lycia), are apparently the results of a misunderstanding.

A. Pankow, Methodius, Bischof von Olympus, in Katholik (1887), ii.
i — 28 113—142 225 — 250 (reprint, Mainz, 1888). Concerning the episcopal
see of Methodius see Th. Zahn , in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. (1885 to
1886), viii. 15 — 20. C. G. Lundberg, Methodius, biskop of Olympos, en
Studie i de fornicenska patristiken, Stockholm, 1901.

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 83; cf. Socr., Hist, eccl, vi. 13.

2 L. c. 3 De sectis, iii. i.

176 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

2. WRITINGS OF METHODIUS. - - Unlike St. Gregory Thaumat-
urgus Methodius considered that literary labors were one of the most
important phases of his life-work. Of his writings, however, only
one has reached us in its complete Greek text. Others have come
down, in abbreviated shape, through an Old-Slavonic version of the
eleventh century. Though diffuse, he is judged by St. Jerome1 to
be a pleasing and elegant writer. He is remarkable for formal beauty
of diction and delights in imitating Plato , even to the choice of
dialogue as the medium of his thoughts. His dogmatic-historical im
portance is principally due to his energetic and successful fight against
Origenism.

His writings, entire and fragmentary, were collected by Fr. Combefis,
Paris, 1644; they are reprinted in Gallandi , Bibl. vet. Patr. (1767), iii.
663 — 832 (cf. Proleg., li. — liv.), and in Migne, PG., xviii. 9—408, also in
A. Jahn, S. Methodii opera et S. Methodius platonizans, Halle, 1865.
A German version of the Old-Slavonic Corptis Methodianum and a new
edition of most of the Greek fragments were made by G. N. Bonwetsch,
Methodius von Olympus, i: Schriften, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1891. There
is an English translation of the works of Methodius by W. R. Clark , in
Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe, 1896), vi. 309 — 402. See Preuschen , in
Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 468 — 478; G. Fritschel, Methodius
von Olympus und seine Philosophic (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1879. L. Atz-
berger, Gesch. der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit,
Freiburg, 1896, pp. 469—490; G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Theologie des Metho
dius von Olympus untersucht (Abhandlungen der k. - Gesellschaft der
Wissensch. zu Gottingen), Berlin, 1903.

3. WORKS OF METHODIUS IN GREEK. - - «The Banquet or on
Virginity» (auunumov r/ Ttspl a^siaQj2 is an imitation of the «Ban-
quet» of Plato. The virgin Gregorium relates to the author Eubulius
(i. e. Methodius) the story of a banquet in the gardens of Arete at
which ten virgins glorify chastity in lengthy discourses upon that sub
ject. At the end Thecla, the eighth speaker, to whom Arete had given
the prize, intones a hymn to the bridegroom Christ and to His bride
the Church. The dialogue of Methodius «on the Freedom of the
will» faspl TO~J atJTSsoufflouj is almost completely extant in the original
Greek. We have already mentioned (§ 33, 6) a very important frag
ment; there is extant also a somewhat defective version in Old-Slavonic.
In this work an orthodox Christian attacks the Gnostic dualism and
determinism represented by two followers of Valentinian. He denies
the eternity of matter as a principle of evil ; the latter is rather the
result of the free will of rational creatures. The Greek text of the
prolix dialogue, in three books, on the Resurrection, originally per
haps entitled 'A?Xao<pa>v % xepi dvaffraffsco^ has mostly perished; some
fragments of the original are yet extant. There exists, however, in
31d-Slavonic, a complete version, save that the second and third books

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 83. * Migne, PG., xviii. 27—220:

48. ST. METHODIUS OF OLYMPUS. 1/7

have suffered abbreviation. The scene of the dialogue is at Patara,
in the house of the physician Aglaophon ; the subject of the dis
cussion is the problem « whether after death this body will rise again
to incorruptibility » (I, I, 8). Aglaophon and Proclus side with Origen
in denying the identity of the risen body with that of our present
state, while Eubulius (Methodius) and Memianus defend the ecclesia
stical teaching. Methodius1 was unable to finish this work on the
lines of his original plan ; it merited and enjoyed, nevertheless, the
esteem of many.

The «Banquet» was first edited by L. Allatius, Rome, 1656. E. Carel,
S. Methodii Patarensis convivium decem virginum (These), Paris, 1880. On
the hymn at the end of the «Banquet» cf. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzant.
Liter. (2) pp. 653 697. For the dialogue on «Free Will» in Greek and
Slavonic (also a German version) cf. Bonwetsch, \. c., pp. i — 62 •, cf xiv — xxii.
The dialogue on the Resurrection is found ib., pp. 70 — 283; cf. xxiii — xxx.
349. Syriac fragments of this dialogue are printed in Pitra, Analecta sacra,
iv. 201—205 434—438.

4. WRITINGS PRESERVED IN OLD-SLAVONIC. --In addition to the
dialogues on Free Will and the Resurrection there are four other
tractates in the Old-Slavonic Corpus Methodianum: «On life and
rational activity » (De vita), an exhortation to contentment with the
present life and to hope for the future; .«On the difference of foods
and the young cow mentioned in Leviticus » (rather in Numb, xix)
(De cibis), an allegorico- typical interpretation of the food-ordinances
of the Old Testament and the law of the sacrifice of the red cow
(see § 39, 14) addressed to two women, Frenope and Kilonia; To
Sistelius on leprosy (De lepra), a dialogue between Eubulius (Metho
dius) and Sistelius on the spiritual sense of the legislation concerning
leprosy in Lev. xiii ; «On the bloodsucker mentioned in Proverbs,
and on the words 'the heavens shew forth the glory of God'» (De
sawguisuga), an exposition of Prov. xxx. 1 5 ff. (cf. xxiv. 50 ff.) and
Ps. xviii. 2 (Septuagint). It was addressed to a certain Eustachius.

The Old-Slavonic text of these tractates is given in a German version
by Bonwetsch, 1. c. The Greek fragments of the work on leprosy printed
by Bonwetsch (pp. 311 — 325) prove conclusively that the Slavonic text has
been abbreviated and mutilated. For the contents of these treatises see
Abhandlgn., Al. v. Ottingen zum 70. Geburtstag gevvidmet, Munich, 1898,
PP- 29—53.

5. LOST WRITINGS. - - In the De sanguisuga (10, 4) Methodius
announces to his friend Eustachius a work «On the body». St. Jerome
mentions2 four works that no longer .exist: Adversum Porpkyriunt
libri, an extensive refutation of the fifteen books written against the
Christians by that Neoplatonist philosopher3; Adversus Origenem de

1 De cibis, c. i, i. 2 De viris ill., c. 83.

;{ //«?/-., Ep. 48, 13; 70, 3; al.
BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 12

1^8 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

pythonissa, or on the Witch of Endor, in opposition to the homily
of Origen on the same subject (§ 39, 4); In Genesim et In Canticum
canticorum commentarii. Theodoret of Cyrus mentions1 a « discourse
on the martyrs* (nsp\ rtov napT'jpcov Ai'rfoq). It is probable that the
dialogue entitled Xenon, mentioned by Socrates2 is identical with the
work «On created things» (nepi TWV ^svTjTwv)t fragments of which
have been preserved by Photius3, against the work of Origen «On
the eternity of the world » defended, as it seems, by Xenon. Some
fragments of the scholia of Methodius on the book of Job are met
with in the Catenae.

For the fragments of the work against Porphyry see Bomvetsch, 1. c.,
pp. 345 — 348. To the same work must belong the pretended excerpta tria
ex homilia S. Methodii de cruce et passione Christi, in Migne , PG. , xviii.
397 — 404. See Preuschen , 1. c. , i. 478, for the fragments of the com
mentary on Genesis and the Canticle of canticles. Two sentences of the
work «On the Martyrs* are printed in Bonwetsch, 1. c., p. 349. Cf. ib.,
pp. 349 — 354, the fullest collection of the scholia on Job.

6. SPURIOUS WORKS. - The orations De Simeone et Anna*, In
ramos palmarum 5 and In ascensionem Domini Nostri lesu Christi.
are spurious; the last exists only in Armenian and in a fragmen
tary state.

The last of these orations is found in Pitra , Analecta sacra, iv.
207—209 439—441.

CHAPTER II.

THE WESTERN WRITERS.
§ 49. General Considerations.

As early as the third century the ecclesiastical literature of the
West exhibits certain native peculiarities. Its organ is the Latin, not
the Greek tongue, and a distinctly Roman spirit dominates its contents.

There reigns throughout its products a sober and practical spirit.

The idealism of the Greek writings, their tendency to speculation and
dialectic are not entirely foreign to .this Latin Christian literature;
yet its direct purpose is the immediately necessary or useful. Withal,
it exhibits versatility and variety in a degree that almost astonishes
the reader. Owing to the circumstances of the times the apologetic
element is supreme. In the writings of Tertullian and in the (Greek)
writings of Hippolytus anti-heretical polemic abounds. Exegesis is
represented chiefly by Hippolytus and Victorinus of Pettau. Com-
modianus leads the procession of Christian poets in the Latin tongue.
is worthy of note that the Western writers are few, and that of
the small number the majority comes from Northern Africa.

Dial.

; opp. ed. Schnltze, iv. 55. 2 Hist ecd ^ yj

§ 50. TERTULLIAN.

A. AFRICAN WRITERS.
§ 50. Tertullian.

1. HIS LIFE. — Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was born,
it is usually believed, about the year 160 at Carthage, where his
father was serving as a centurion (centurio proconsularis) in the service
of the proconsul of Africa 1. He received an excellent academic
training and probably entered upon the career of an advocate2.
There are in the Pandects some excerpts from the writings of a jurist
Tertullian (Quaestianum libri viii, De castrensi peculio) whom many
historians are inclined to identify with our ecclesiastical writer About
193, certainly before 197, he became a Christian, was ordained also a
priest according to St. Jerome3, and began a long literary career in
the service of the new faith. About midway in his life (ca. 202) he
openly joined the sect of the Montanists, and began to attack the
Catholic Church with a violence scarcely inferior to that which he
had manifested against heathenism. Within the Montanist fold he
founded a special sect known as Tertullianists 4. He is said to have
lived to a very advanced age5.

C. E. Frcppd, Tertullien, 2 voll., Paris, 1864; 3. ed. 1886. F. Boh-
ringer, Die Kirche Christ! und ihre Zeugen, 2. ed., iii. — iv: Die lateinisch-
afrikanische Kirche. Tertullianus, Cypriantis (Stuttgart, 1864); 2. ed. 1873.
A. Hauck, Tertullians Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. & Noldechen,
Tertullian, Gotha, 1890. Cf. Noldechen, Die Abfassungszeit der Schriften
Tertullians, Leipzig, 1888 (Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 2). In these two
books Noldechen collected the results of investigations previously published
in several theological and historical reviews. -- Schanz , Geschichte der
rom. Literatur (1896), iii. 240 — 302. P. Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de
1'Afrique chretienne. I: Tertullien, Paris, 1901. H. Kellner and G. Esscr,
in Kirchenlexikon, 2. ed., xi. 1389 — 1426. -- On the Jurist Tertullian cf.
Schanz, 1. c., iii. 182.

2. HIS LITERARY LABORS. - Tertullian is the most prolific of
all the Latin writers; he is also the most original and personal.
Ebert says well that perhaps no author has ever more fully justified
than Tertullian the phrase of BufTon that the style is the man; for
there never was a man that spoke more from his heart. He lives
habitually in an atmosphere of conflict with others and with himself.
He is quite conscious of this weakness. « Unhappy me!» he cries
out on one occasion, «always burning with the fever of im
patience » - - miser rimus ego semper iiror caloribus impatientiae6.
All his .extant writings, it may be said, are polemical. They fall
easily into three groups : apologetic, in defence of Christianity or

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 53. 2 Eus.. Hist, eccl., ii. 2, 4.

3 De viris ill., c. 53. 4 Aug., De haer., c. 86.

5 Hier., \. c. : fertur vixisse usque ad decrepitam aetatem.

6 De pat. c. I.

12 *

I SO FIRST- PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

against heathenism and Judaism; dogmatico-polemic, in refutation
of heresy in general and of certain heretics; practico-ascetical, dealing
with various questions of Christian morality and discipline. Even in
these writings the polemical element, or a highly personal note, is
always present, whether he writes as a Catholic carried away with
holy zeal yet harshly rigoristic, or as a Montanist overflowing with
passionate rage against the pretended laxity of the Catholic Church.
Tertullian is ever a powerful adversary, a man of burning eloquence,
biting satire, compact and forcible logic. As a rule he over-shoots
the mark , and fails to attain his immediate purpose *. As a writer
he is without moderation, contemptuous of all compromise, proving
frequently more than is needed; the reader is carried away rather
than persuaded by his argument; he is hushed by the fine display
of wit, but remains unconvinced and antagonistic.

In expression Tertullian is concise and bold, solid and rugged,
involved and obscure. He has no sense for beauty of form; he
deliberately scoffs at the refined diction of a Minucius Felix (§ 24).
He seizes with pleasure on popular expressions; in a moment of
embarrassment he is daringly creative and suddenly enriches the
vocabulary of the Latin tongue. The theology of the Western
Christians is indebted to him for many of its technical terms.

The manuscript tradition of the writings of Tertullian is very im
perfect. Only the Apologeticum has come down in numerous codices,
some of them quite ancient; a whole series of his other writings has
been preserved only through the Codex Agobardinus (Parisiensis) of the
ninth century. The works De baptismo, De ieiunio and De pudicitia
are now without any manuscript evidence or guarantee. His writings,
as far as we possess them, must have appeared between 195 and 218.
For each of them the actual date is doubtful or much disputed;
there are no certain points of comparison. However, it is usually
possible to say whether a given work belongs to his Catholic or his
Montanist period.

For the manuscripts of the writings of Tertullian see Preuschen , in
Harnacky Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur, i. 675-677, and E. Kroymann,
Die Tertullian-Uberlieferung in Italian, Wien, 1898 (Sitzungsberichte der
phil.-histor. Kl. der kgl. Akad. der Wissensch. zu Wien, cxxxviii. —
Complete editions of his works were published by B. Rhenanus, Basle,
1521, and often since (cf. A. Horawitz, in the above-mentioned Sitzungs-
benchten, 1872, Ixxi. 662—674); J. Pamelius, Antwerp., 1579; N. Rigaltius,
Pans, 1634; y. S. Semler, Halle, 1769—1776, 6 voll. ; Migne, PL., Paris,
1844, i.— ii.; Fr. Ohler, Leipzig, 1851 — 1854, 3 voll., and also (editio
minor) Leipzig, 1854 (cf. Klussmann, in Zeitschr. fur wissensch. Theol.
[1860], m. 82-100, 363 — 393, and Ohler, ib. [1861], iv. 204—211). An
ition corresponding to modern scientific needs and conditions was under
taken by A. Reifferscheid, and continued after his death (1887) by G. Wis-

1 De virg. vel., c. i.

$ 50. TERTULLIAN. iSl

sowa: Pars I, Vienna, 1890 (Corpus scriptorum eccl. Lat. , xx.). Cf. W-
von Hartel , Patristische Studien, Wien, 1890, i. — iv. (reprint from the
just-mentioned Wiener Sitzungsberichten , cxx. — cxxi.). For other contri
butions to the textual criticism of Tertullian cf. M. Klussmann , Curarum
Tertullianearum partic. i. — iii., Halle, 1881, Gotha, 1887- Excerpta Ter-
tullianea in Isidori Hispalensis Etymologiis (Progr.), Hamburg, 1892. J. van
der Vliet , Studia ecclesiastica : Tertullianus. I. Critica et interpretatoria,
Leiden, 1891. Aem. Kroymann , Quaestiones Tertullianeae criticae, Inns
bruck, 1894; H. Gomperz, Tertullianea, Vienna, 1895; Kroymann., Kritische
Vorarbeiten ftir den dritten und vierten Band der neuen Tertullian- Ausgabe,
Vienna, 1900 (Sitzungsberichte, clxiii.). -- JFr. A. von Besnard, Tertullian.
Samtliche Schriften iibersetzt und bearbeitet, 2 voll., Augsburg, 1837 — 1838.
H. Kellner, Tertullians ausgewahlte Schriften iibersetzt, 2 voll., Kempten
1870 — 1871 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater). Id., Tertullians samtliche Schriften
aus dem Lateinischen iibersetzt, 2 voll., Cologne, 1882. — For an English
translation of the writings of Tertullian see Holmes and Thidnall, in Ante-
Nicene Fathers (ed. Coxe), iii. 17 — 697, 707 — 717; iv. 3 — 121.

On the style and diction of Tertullian the reader may consult G. R.
Haus child , Die Grundsatze und Mittel der Wortbildung bei Tertullian
(Progr.), I, Leipzig, 1876; II, Frankfurt, 1881. J. P. Condamin , De Q.
S. Fl. Tertulliano vexatae religionis patrono et praecipuo, apud Latinos,
christianae linguae artifice (These), Bar-le-duc, 1877. H. Hoppe, De ser-
mone Tertullianeo quaestiones selectae (Dissert, inaug.) , Marburg, 1897.
E. Nor den, Die antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig, 1898, ii. 606 — 615. H. Hoppe,
Syntax und Stil des Tertullian, Leipzig, 1903. See also for the illustration
of the text C. Cavedoni , Luoghi notevoli di Tertulliano dichiarati coi ris-
contri dei monument! antichi, in Archivio dell' Ecclesiastico (1864), ii. 409
to 431. H. Kellner, Organischer Zusammenhang und Chronologic der
Schriften Tertullians, in «Katholik» (1879), n- 56z — 589^ ^V- Chronologiae
Tertullianeae supplementa (Progr.), Bonn, 1890. G. N. JBonwetsch , Die
Schriften Tertullians nach der Zeit ihrer Abfassung untersucht, Bonn, 1878.
A. Harnack, Zur Chronologic der Schriften Tejtullians , in Zeitschr. fur
Kirchengesch. (1877 — 1878), ii. 572 — 583. E. Noldechen, Die Abfassungszeit
der Schriften Tertullians, Leipzig, 1888 (see above). J. Schmidt, Ein Bei-
trag zur Chronologic der Schriften Tertullians und der Prokonsuln von
Afrika, in Rhein. Museum fiir Philol., new series (1891), xlvi. 77 — 98.
y. P. Knaake, Die Predigten des Tertullian und Cyprian, in Theol. Studien
und Kritiken (1903), Ixxvi. 606 — 639. -- - Works on the doctrine of Ter
tullian : y. A. W. Neander, Antignostikus. Geist des Tertullianus und Ein-
leitung in dessen Schriften, Berlin, 1825; 2. ed. 1849. £*• £• Leimbach,
Beitrage zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullians, Gotha, 1874. G. Caucanas,
Tertullien et le montanisme, Geneve, 1876. G. R. Hauschild, Die rationale
Psychologic und Erkenntnistheorie Tertullians, Leipzig, 1880. G. Ludwig,
Tertullians Ethik in durchatis objektiver Darstellung (Inaug. - Diss.),
Leipzig, 1885. G. Esser, Die Seelenlehre Tertullians, Paderborn, 1893.
K. H. Wirth, Der «Verdienst»-Begriff in der christl. Kirche. I: Der «Ver-
dienst»-Begriff bei Tertullian, Leipzig, 1893. y. Stier, Die Gottes- und
Logoslehre Tertullians, Gottingen, 1889. G. Schwelowsky , Der Apologet
Tertullian in seinem Verhaltnis zu der griechisch-romischen Philosophic,
Leipzig, i go i. C. Guignebert, Tertullien. Etude sur ses sentiments a 1'egard
de 1'empire et de la socie'te civile, Paris, 1901. -- J. F. Bethune- Baker,
Tertullian's use of Substantia, Natura, and Persona, in Journal of Theol.
Studies (1902 — 1903), iv. 440 — 442. J. Leblanc, Le materialisme de Ter
tullien, in Annales de philos. chretienne, Juillet, 1903, pp. 415 — 423.
H. Ronsch , Das Neue Testament Tertullians aus dessen Schriften mog-

1 82 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

lichst vollstandig rekonstruiert , Leipzig, 1871. J. Kolberg , Verfassung,
Kultus imd Disziplin der christlichen Kirche nach den Schriften Tertullians,
Braunsberg, 1886. A. Harnack, Tertullian in der Literatur der alten Kirche
(Sitzungsberichte der kgl. pretiftischen Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlin, 1895,
pp. 545 — 579). A. J. Mason, Tertullian and Purgatory, in Journal of Theol.
Studies (1902), iii. 598 — 601. J. Tixeront , Histoire des dogmes. I: La
Theologie ante-Niceenne, Paris, 1904. A. d'Ales , La Theologie de Ter-
tullien, Paris, 1905. y. Turmel, Tertullien, in La Pense'e chretienne, Textes
et etudes, Paris, 1905, xlviii. 398.

3. APOLOGETIC WRITINGS. — Foremost among these is the Apo
logeticum or Apologeticus (the most ancient text-witnesses do not agree),
a defence of Christianity, composed in the summer or autumn of 197,
and addressed to the provincial governors of the Roman Empire. It
opens with a request, couched in words of great beauty and force,
that the truth, being forbidden to defend itself publicly, may reach
the ears of the rulers at least by the hidden paths of dumb letters.
The Apology itself falls into two parts, in so far as it treats first of
the « secret » and then of the « public » crimes of the Christians (pcculta
facinora, c. 6; manifestiora, cc. 6 9). He makes short work of the
first class of accusations: infanticide, Thyestsean banquets, incest
(cc. 7 — 9); all the more lengthy and detailed is his treatment
(cc. 10 — 27 28 — 45) of the «public» crimes: contempt of the religion
of the fatherland (intentatio laesae divinitatis, c. 27), and the still
more reprehensible crime of high treason (titulus laesae augustioris
maiestatis, c. 28). He closes with an assertion of the absolute
superiority of Christianity ; it is a revealed religion and is beyond the
rivalry of all human philosophy (cc. 46 — 50). The special characteristic
of the work lies in the boldness with which the politico-juridical
accusations against the Christians are brought to the front. Its relations
to the Octavius of Minucius Felix have already been indicated (§ 24, 2).
An ancient Greek version has perished ; we know of it only through
citations in Eusebius1. A second Apology, Ad nationes libri ii, is
partly illegible in the only manuscript known to us, the Codex Ago-
bardinus. In the first book he demonstrates that the accusations launched
against the Christians are really true of the heathens ; in the second
book he draws on Varro's Rerum divinarum libri xvi in order
to cover with ridicule the heathen belief in the gods. The tone of this
work is more animated and acrimonious, than that of the Apologeticum.
Its process of reasoning is also less orderly and the diction less chaste.
It was also written in 197, a little while before the Apologeticum, the
appearance of which it frequently announces (i. 3 7 10; al). The golden
booklet De testimonio animae is an appendix to the Apologeticum,
destined to illustrate the meaning of the phrase testimonium animae
naturaliter christianae (Apol. c. 17). Even the heathen, by his in-

1 Hist, eccl., ii. 2, 4 — 6; al.

§ 50- TERTULLIAN. 183

voluntary exclamations and his ordinary modes of speech, gives ex
pression to a natural religious knowledge of God, to belief in His
existence and unity, the reality of malevolent spirits, and a life beyond
the grave. All this corresponds admirably with the teachings of the
Christians. In his treatment of these ideas Tertullian reveals the
touch and temper of the poet. The brief letter Ad Scapulam, written
probably some time after Aug. 14., 212, was intended as an ad
monition to Scapula, proconsul of Africa, an especially fierce per
secutor of the Christians. Tertullian reminds him of the divine
judgments that had fallen upon the persecutors of former days. The
Adversus ludaeos, called forth, as the opening words show, by a
discussion between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte, was written
to prove that the grace of God, voluntarily rejected by Israel, has
been offered to the Gentiles. In place of the ancient law of retri
bution there has come the new law of love. In Jesus of Nazareth
the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled. The last chapters,
9 — 14, which deal with the Messianic office of Jesus, are clearly an
unskilful excerpt from the third book of Tertullian's « Against Marcion».
Some passages, nevertheless, not found in the latter work seem to
indicate by their style and vocabulary the personality of Tertullian.
It is probably true that Tertullian left the work incomplete; a later
and unskilful hand has compiled the last chapters. Chapters I — 8
are surely the work of Tertullian ; both internal evidence and citations
by St. Jerome make it certain *.

The best of the separate editions of the Apologeticum is that of
S. Haverkamp , Leyden, 1718. Later editions or reprints are those by
y. Kayser, Paderborn, 1865; H. Hurter, Innsbruck, 1872 (Ss. Patr. opusc.
sel., xix); F. Leonard, Namur, 1881 ; T. H. Bindley, London, 1889. Vizzini,
Bibliotheca Ss. Patrum, Rome, 1902 — 1903, series iii, voll. i ii iii iv v,
has edited the Apologeticum (according to Havercamp's text), De prae-
scriptione haereticorum, De testimonio animae, De baptismo, De poeni-
tentia, De oratione, De pudicitia, Adversus Marcionem, Adversus Valenti-
nianos. P. de Lagarde published a new recension of the Apologeticum, in Ab-
handlungen der k. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. zu Gottingen, 1891, xxxvii. 73 ff.
C. Callcvaert, Le codex Fuldensis, le meilleur manuscrit de rApologeticum
de Tertullien, in Revue d'hist. et de liter, religieuses (1902), vii. 322 — 353.
For the ancient Greek version see Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen
(1892), viii. 4, i — 36. The relation between the Apologeticum and the Ad
nationes is treated by v. Hartel , Patristische Studien, ii. The letter Ad
Scaptdam, with the De praescriptione and the Ad martyres, were edited anew
by T. H. Bindley, Oxford, 1894. For the Adversus ludaeos see P. Corssen,
Die Altercatio Simonis ludaei etTheophili Christiani, Berlin, 1890, pp. 2 — 9;
E. Noldechen, in Texte und Untersuchungen, (1894), xii. 2; j. M. Ein-
siedler , De Tertulliani adv. ludaeos libro (Dissert. Inaug.), Vienna, 1897.
Noldechen maintains the genuineness and unity of the work ; Einsiedler, on
the contrary, holds that with a few exceptions the second part is owing
to a later compiler.

1 Comm. in Dan. ad ix. 24 IT.

184 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

4. DOGMATICO-POLEMICAL WORKS. - - Apart from its local and
immediate purpose, the defence of Catholic doctrine in general, or
the refutation of heresy as such, was the theme of Tertullian in his
imperishable work De praescriptione haereticorum, a title vouched for
by the oldest and best manuscripts. Praescriptio is a form of de
fence in civil procedure based on length of possession; its result is
to exclude the accuser at the very opening of the process. It is
admitted by all that the Lord confided to the Apostles the preaching
of His doctrine; therefore only the churches founded by them, and
not heretics, can be admitted to testify in regard to Christian truth.
This is a consequence of the principalitas veritatis et posteritas
mendacitatis (c. 31). Catholic doctrine is that which existed from
the beginning, and is therefore the true one; every heresy is an
innovation and as such necessarily false. The appeal of heretics to
the Holy Scriptures is clearly unjustifiable, for they are the property
of the Catholic Church, which received them from the Apostles.
Previous to his discussion and demonstration of the thesis of pre
scription by possession (cc. 15—40), Tertullian treats at some length
of the origin and nature of heresy (cc. I — 14); in conclusion he calls
attention to the lack of moral gravity and of religious earnestness visible
among heretics; they manifest themselves thereby as followers of
falsehood (cc. 41 — 44). This work stands as a classic defence of the
Catholic principle of authority and tradition. It is a development of
the theory of St. Irenaeus1, set forth with the skill of a jurist.
Tertullian wrote it while still a Catholic, probably before any of his
writings against individual heretics (cf. c. 44).

Among the latter works the Adversus Marcionem libri v is easily
pre-eminent; he revised it twice before it reached its present form
(i. i). The first book in its third (and surviving) form was edited
in 207, «in the fifteenth year of the emperor Severus» (i. 15); it is
not possible to determine more closely at what- intervals the other
four books followed. In the first two he refutes Marcion's doctrine of
a good God and a Creator-God, the latter at once just and wicked.
There cannot be a good God other than the Creator of the world
(book i); the Creator is rather the one true God, to whom belong
all the attributes with which the Marcionites clothe their good God
(book ii). In the third book he proves that the historical Christ is
the Messias foretold in the Old Testament. The two remaining books
are a critique of the New Testament according to Marcion; in the
fourth he discusses the «evangelium», in the fifth the «apostolicum»
(§ 25> 7)- Adversus Hermogenem was probably written after De prae
scriptione; in it he attacks with philosophical and scriptural weapons
the dualism of the Gnostics. It was called forth by the teaching of

~ Adv. haer., iii. ; cf. § 34, 3.

§ 50- TERTULLIAN. 185

the painter Hermogenes (at Carthage?) that God had not created the
world. He only fashioned it out of matter that had existed from all
eternity. Hermogenes claimed also for his teaching the authority of
Scripture. Tertullian is already a Montanist in the Adversus Valen-
linianos (c. 5). Its composition is posterior (c. 16) to that of the work
against Hermogenes ; in it he is content to describe the doctrine of his
adversaries according to St. Irenaeus * and to cover them with ridicule.
We do not know that he ever published the scientific criticism of the
Valentinian Gnosis promised in this work (cc. 3 6). He composed the
De baptismo while still a Catholic, in order to solve the doubts raised
among the Christians of Carthage by the rationalistic objections that
a certain Quintilla (the proper reading, c. i) was urging against the
ecclesiastical teaching concerning baptism. He declared all heretical
baptism invalid (c. 15). The Scorpiace, or antidote against the bites
of the scorpion, is a booklet against the Gnostics whom he compares
to scorpions. Its purpose is to show the moral worth and meritorious
nature of martyrdom ; it was very probably published after the second
book against Marcion (c. 5). The De came Christi is a polemical
work against the Gnostic Docetism of Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus,
and Alexander ; he proves that the body of Christ was a real human
body, taken from the virginal body of Mary, but not by the way of
human procreation. It is here that we meet (c. 9) his eccentric
notion, otherwise in keeping with his extreme realism, that the appear
ance of Christ was unseemly. He cites in this work among other
Christian sources his own fourth book against Marcion (c. 7). The
large work De resurrectione carfiis, also against the Gnostics, seems
(c. 2) to have been published immediately after the De carne Christi.
It reviews (cc. 3 — 17) the arguments furnished by reason in favor of
the resurrection of the body, illustrates at length the pertinent texts
of the Old and New Testaments (cc. 18 — 55), and discusses the
nature and qualities of the risen body (cc. 56 — 63). In the closing
chapters he lays especial stress on the substantial identity of the
risen with the actual body. Adversus Praxeam, probably the last
of his anti-heretical writings, certainly written long after his definitive
exit from the Church, defends the ecclesiastical teaching concerning
the Trinity against Patripassian monarchianism. In his defence of
the personal distinction between the Father and the Son he does
not, apparently, avoid a certain subordinationism. Nevertheless in
many very clear expressions and turns of thought he almost forestalls
the Nicene creed.

New editions, or reprints of old editions, of the De praescriptione have
been made kyH.Hurter, Innsbruck, 1870 1880 (SS. Patr. opusc. sel. ix);
E. PreuscJmi, Freiburg, 1892 (Sammlung ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmen-
geschichtl. Quellenschriften , iii); T. H. Bindley, Oxford, 1894. Vizzini's

1 Adv. haer., i.

1 86 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

edition is mentioned on p. 183. L. Lehanneur } Le traite de Tertullien
centre les Valentiniens, Caen, 1886. De baptismo is also in Hurter, 1. c.,
Innsbruck, 1869, vii. R. A. Lipsius , Uber Tertullians Schrift wider
Praxeas, in Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1868), xiii. 701 — 724. — Th. Scher-
mann , Lateinische Parallelen zu Didimus (in De baptismo), in Rom.
Quartalschr. fiir christl. Altertumskunde und fiir Kirchengesch. (1902), xvi.
232 — 242. E. Heintzel, Hermogenes, der Hauptvertreter des philosophi-
schen Dualismus in der alten Kirche, Berlin, 1902. E. von der Goltz, Die
Traktate des Tertullian und Cyprian iiber das Gebet, in «Das Gebet in
der altesten Christenheit», Leipzig, 1901, pp. 279 — 287.

5. PRACTICO-ASCETICAL WRITINGS. - The spirited treatise De
patientia especially interests all readers of Tertullian , because in a
sense addressed to its own impatient author. He was to find a
certain consolation in speaking of the beauty and sublimity of patience,
even as the sick delight in speaking of the value of health (c. i).
The book surely belongs to the Catholic period of his life, as does
also De oratione destined for the Catechumens. In the latter he
undertakes to explain the Lord's Prayer (cc. 2 — 9), gives various in
structions on the value of prayer in general (cc. 10 — 28) and ends
with a moving description of its power and efficacy (c. 29). In De
paenitentia he treats of penance at length, of the penitential temper,
the practice of penance, and of two kinds of penance peculiar to the
early Church : that which an adult was expected to perform before
baptism (cc. 4 — 6) and the so-called canonical penance that the
baptised Christian had to undergo after the commission of such grave
sins as homicide, idolatry and sins of the flesh, before being reconciled
with the Church (cc. 7—12). In his Montanist work De pudicitia he
directly contradicts the teaching of this Catholic work on penance.
His change of attitude was occasioned by the decree of Pope Callixtus
(217 — 222) that henceforth sins of adultery and fornication would be
remitted those who had fulfilled the canonical penance (c. i). In
this work Tertullian laments with bitterness the decadence of virtue
and righteousness, attacks violently the «psychici», a name given to
the Catholics in opposition to the «pneumatici» or Montanists, and
undertakes to show that the Church cannot remit such grave sins as
adultery and fornication (c. 4). The beautiful letter Ad martyres,
written certainly (c. 6) in 197, contains words of consolation and
exhortation to a number of Christians who had been suffering a long
imprisonment for their faith, and were in daily expectation of the
final summons. Among his writings are several on Christian marriage,
especially on second marriages. The earliest and most attractive is
his work Ad uxorem in two books. In it he advises his wife Esther
not to remarry after his death, or else to marry no one but a Christian.
As a Montanist, however, he rejects second marriage unconditionally.
In the tractate De exhortatione castitatis addressed to a widowed
friend, he declares that a second marriage is simply fornication (non

TERTULLIAN. 187

aliud dicendum erit secundum matrimonium quam species stupri, c. 9).
In De monogamia, written somewhat later, about 217, he maintains
the same opinion with even less reserve (unum matrimonium novimus
sicut unum Deum, c. i). The De spectaculis is devoted to an ex
haustive study of a question that had then become very serious:
Can Christians frequent the public games and theatres (spectacula) of
the heathens? His answer is that all such plays are intimately cor
related with the idolatrous worship of the times (cc. 4 — 13) and
necessarily constitute an immediate peril for Christian morality by
reason of the savage passions they arouse (cc. 14 — 30). He pours
out against heathenism all the hatred of his soul in a flaming de
scription of the greatest spectacle the world shall ever behold, the
Second Coming of the Lord or the Last Judgment (c. 30). In De
idololatria, posterior (c. 13) to De spectaculis, and written very pro
bably while he was still a Catholic, he illustrates in every sense the
duty of Christians to avoid idolatry; the fine arts and public life are
entirely permeated with it and cannot therefore offer any opening
for Christian activity. Quite similar are the contents of De corona,
written probably during August or September of 211, apropos of
the act of a Christian soldier who had refused to put on a crown of
flowers, in keeping with a heathen custom. As the wearing of such
a crown was among the specific rites of idolatry (c. 7) it followed
that a Christian soldier could not, on principle, accept military service
(c. n). In the two books De cultu feminarum, written while he was
still a Catholic, he thunders against female vanity in the matter of
dress and ornament. It is only in the Codex Agobardinus that the
first book bears the title De cultu feminarum ; in all other manuscripts
it is known as De habitu muliebri; moreover, it has reached us in
a very imperfect state. The second book pursues the same theme,
and is composed in a calmer and milder spirit. In the De oratione
(cc. 21 22) he had maintained that Christian virgins should always
be veiled in the Church. Some dissented from his views, and he
returned to the subject in a special treatise, De virginibus velandis,
in which he appealed to the Paraclete, the Holy Scriptures and the
discipline of the Church, and went beyond his former demand by
insisting that these virgins, once they had reached the age of ma
turity, should be always and everywhere veiled. De fuga in per-
secutione is a Montanist work , written towards the close of 212;
it forbids as absolutely illicit flight of any kind during the stress
of persecution. De ieiunio adversus psychicos is one of the most
offensive of his Montanist writings; in it he denounces (c. i) the
Catholics as gluttons because they observe a certain moderation in
fasting.

De patientia is printed in Hurter, SS. Patr. opusc. selecta, iv; also
ib.) De oratione, ii; De paenitentia, v. De paenitentia and De pudicitia

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

were edited apart by E. Preuschen, Freiburg, 1891 (Sammlung ausgewahlter
Quellenschriften, ii), and by P. de Labriolle, with a French translation (Coll.
Hemmer et Lejay), Paris, 1906, Ixvii. 237. Cf. Preuschen, Tertullians Schrif-
ten De paenitentia tmd De pudicitia mit Riicksicht auf die Buftdisziplin
untersucht (Inaug.-Diss.), Tiibingen, 1890; also E. Rolffs, Das Indulgenz-
edikt des romischen Bischofs Kallist, Leipzig, 1893 (Texte und Unter-
suchungen, xi. 3). G. Esser, De pudic. c. 21 und der Primat des rom.
Bischofs, in «Katholik» (1903), 3, 193 — 220. -- Ad martyres is found in
Hurtcr, 1. c., iv; there is also an edition by T. H. Bindley, Oxford, 1894.
- On the De monogamia see Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuchungen
(1895), xii. 4, 50 — 109: «Tertullians Gegner in De monogamia» ; cf. § 35, 5.
E. Klussmann has published an excellent separate edition of De specta-
culis, Leipzig, 1876. See his Adnot. crit. ad Tert. libr. de spectac., Rudol-
stadt, 1876. For the purpose and the sources of the De spectaculis cf.
E. Noldcchen, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1894), xxxvii. 91 — 125;
Neue Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1894), iii. 206 — 226; Zeitschr. fur Kirchen-
gesch. (1894 — 1895), xv- *6i — 203^ Philologus3 Suppl. (1894), vi. 2, 727
to 766. K. Werber, Tertullians Schrift De spectac. in ihrem Verhaltnis
zu Varros Rerum divinarum libri (Progr.), Teschen, 1896. On the De
ieiunio see Rolffs, 1. c. (1895), xii. 4, 5- — 49: «Tertullians Gegner in De
ieiunio».

6. THE «DE ANIMA» AND «DE PALLIO». - Two works of Ter-
tullian do not fall into any of the above-mentioned groups ; they merit
therefore a distinct mention. De amma belongs to his Montanist
period (cc. 9 45 58) and was written after the second book against
Marcion (c. 21). It is the first Christian psychology, though less a
manual of philosophy than of theology, its purpose being (c. I — 3)
to describe the doctrine of the soul according to Christian revelation
and to refute the philosophic or rather Gnostic heresy that hid itself
beneath the cloak of philosophy. The first section (cc. 4 — 22) deals
with the nature and the faculties of the soul. While he does not
deny the immaterial character of the latter, he believes himself bound
to maintain a certain degree of corporeity; for a condition of pure
spirituality was unintelligible to him1. In the second section (cc. 23
to 41) he investigates the problem of the specific origin of each soul,
rejects the theories of pre-existence and of metempsychosis, and
opposes to creatianism the crassest generatianism or traducianism.
In the act of generation man reproduces his whole nature, body and
soul. The third section (cc. 42 — 58) treats of death, sleep, the world
of dreams, the state and place of the soul after death. The curious
little work De pallia, written between 209 and 21 1 (cf. c. 2), owes its
origin to a personal circumstance. For some unknown reason Ter-
tullian had put off the toga and taken to wearing the pallium, an act
that drew down on him the satire of his fellow-citizens. In this booklet
he justifies his conduct with playful art and biting sarcasm.

Concerning the source of De anima, a work on the same subject
an. c. 6) by Soramis , a physician of Ephesus, see H. Diels , Doxo-

1 De came Christi, c. 1 1 ; Adv. Praxeam, c. 7.

§ 50- TERTULLIAN. 189

graph! Graeci, Berlin, 1890, pp. 203 ff. We owe to Cl. Salmasius an ex
cellent separate edition of the De pallio, Paris, 1622, Leyden, 1656. This
latter treatise is illustrated by H. Kellner, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1870),
Hi. 547 — 566, and by G, Boissier, La fin du paganisme, Paris, 1891 (3. ed.,
Paris, 1898), i. 259—304.

7. LOST WRITINGS OF TERTULLIAN. — Three of his extant Latin
works, he tells us, were written also in Greek: De spectaculis1, De
baptismo or on the invalidity of heretical baptism (c. 15), De virginibus
velandis (c. i). The Greek text of these writings has perished; and
similarly the Latin text of a still larger number of writings. We
know from his own statement that he published works entitled De
spe fide Hum, De paradiso, Adversus Apelleiacos (?), De censu animae
adversus Hermogenwn, De fato. De spe fide Hum'2' promoted Chiliastic
views 3. In De paradiso 4 he discussed many questions concerning Para
dise 6 ; among other things he maintained the thesis that all departed
souls, except those of the martyrs, must wait in the under-world
« until the day of the Lord»6. Adversus Apelleiacos was directed
against the followers of Apelles (§ 25, 7) who held that not God,
but a superior angel had created this world and was afterwards seized
with regret for -his act7. In De censu animae §, «on the origin of
the soul», he refuted the doctrine of Hermogenes that the soul was
material in its origin, and there was in man no such thing as free
will 9. De fato was written against the teachings of the philosophers
concerning fate and chance 10. Through St. Jerome we know of three
(or rather, perhaps, five) other works of Tertullian. One of them was
entitled De ecstasi, or rather xspi ixaraGzcoQ^, perhaps a Greek work
in defence of Montanism or the ecstatic speech of the Montanist
prophets. It was originally in six books, but when he had read the
anti-Montanistic work of Apollonius (§ 35, 3) he added a seventh
book against the latter. A work on marriage, Ad amicum p kilo-
sop hum de angustiis nuptiarum, is mentioned twice by St. Jerome 12.
Another lost work was entitled De Aaron vestibus, on the liturgical
garments of the High Priest in the Old Testament 13. It is supposed
that he wrote two other works: De circumcisione and De mundis
atque immundis animalibus u. The index of the Codex Agobardinus
shows that it once contained three works of Tertullian entitled : De
carne et anima, De animae submissione, De superstitione saeculi;
nothing is known of them beyond these titles.

I Tert., De corona, c. 6. 2 Adv. Marcion., iii. 24.

* Hicr., De viris ill., c. 18; Comm. in Ezech. ad xxxvi. I ss.

4 Tert., De anima, c. 55. 5 Id., Adv. Marc , v. 12.

6 Id., De anima, c. 55. 7 Id., De carne Christi, c. 8.

8 Id., De anima, c I. ° Ib., cc. I 3 n 21 22 24.

10 Ib., c. 20 ; see the citation in Planciades Fulgentius: Tertull. opp. (ed. Ohler}, ii. 745.

II Hier., De viris ill., c. 53; cf. c. 40 and also c. 24. 12 Hier., Ep. 22, 22.
13 Hier., Ep. 64, 23. " Id., Ep. 36, i.

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

8. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. — In the manuscripts and editions there
is commonly added to De praescriptione, as an appendix, a Libellus
adversus omnes haerescs, containing a list of heretics from Dositheus
to Praxeas. The work is surely not from Tertullian's pen, but rather
from that of Victorinus of Pettau (§ 58, i). The principal source
used by its author was the so-called Syntagma of Hippolytus
(§ 54, 3). The works De Trinitate and De cibis Judaicis , pu
blished in the editions of Tertullian, were written by Novatian
(§ 55> 2 3)- A fragment De execrandis gentium diis, proving from
the example of Jupiter that the heathens entertain unworthy notions
of the divinity, is of unknown origin ; the diversity of style shows that
it cannot belong to Tertullian. Neither is he the author of the poem
Adversus Marcionem or Adversus Marcionitas in 1302 hexameters
and five books. It is not only devoid of poetical merit, but frequently
violates the rules of grammar and prosody. Hiickstadt and Oxe
agree in attributing it to the latter half of the fourth century, the
former to a writer in Rome, the latter to one in Africa, while Waitz
maintains that it was composed by Commodianus (§ 57).

For the Libellus adversus omnes haereses (OeJiler, 1. c., ii. 751 — 765)
see the literature on the Syntagma of Hippolytus (§ 54, 3). E. Hiickstadt,
liber das pseudo - tertullianische Gedicht Adv. Marcionem (Inaug.-Diss.),
Leipzig, 1875. A. Oxt, Prolegomena de carmine Adv. Marcionitas (Dissert,
inaug.), Leipzig, 1888; also Oxt, Victorini versus de lege Domini, em un-
edierter Cento aus dem Carmen Adv. Marcionitas (Progr.), Krefeld, 1894.
H. Waitz, Das pseudo -tertullianische Gedicht Adv. Marcionem, Darm
stadt, 1901. For the poems DC gcnesi cf. Oehler, 1. c., ii. 774—776
(§ 88, 2), De Sodoma and De lona ib., ii. 769 — 773 (§ 88, 2). See § 116, 5
for the poem De iudicio Domini (Oehler, 1. c. , ii. 776—781), also found
amidst the works of Cyprian (ed. Hartel, iii. 308-325) where it is entitled
Ad Flavin m Fclicem de resurrectione mortuorum.

§ 51. St. Cyprian.

I. His LIFE. - One of the most attractive figures in early eccle
siastical literature is the noble bishop of Carthage, Thascius Csecilius
Cyprianus. The Vita Caccilii Cypriani, which describes his con
version to the Christian faith, was written soon after his death by
one closely related to him and thoroughly informed1 according to
St Jerome by his deacon and companion Pontius. From his own
writings, however, especially from his correspondence, we acquire a
better knowledge of his life both private and public. He was born
about the year 200 in Africa, of wealthy heathen parents, embraced
the career of a rhetorician and as such won brilliant renown at
Carthage2 About 246 he was converted to Christianity by C&-
cilianus (Vita c. 4) or Caecilius3, a priest of Carthage, soon after

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 68. * Lact., Div. Inst., v. i, 24.

'•' Hier., De viris ill., c. 67.

§ 51- ST. CYPRIAN. IQI

which he was admitted among the clergy. At the end of 248 or
early in 249, he was made bishop of Carthage and metropolitan of
proconsular Africa. He discharged the duties of this office during
ten stormy years with indefatigable zeal and great success. In the
sanguinary persecution of Decius (250 — 251), during which he fled
from Carthage and kept himself in concealment, many renounced
the Christian faith and were known as sacrificati or thurificati,
libellatici, acta facientes. The question regarding the treatment of
these lapsi or rather the conditions of their reconciliation with the
Church led to a schism at Carthage as well as at Rome. The
deacon Felicissimus became the leader of a party which reproached
Cyprian with his great severity, while at Rome a part of the com
munity ranged itself under the banner of Novatian and withdrew
from communion with Pope Cornelius because of his excessive mildness
in the treatment of similar « fallen » brethren. The controversy on
the validity of heretical baptism was the occasion of other grave
disorders. Cyprian held with Tertullian (§50, 47) that baptism
administered by heretics was invalid; he therefore baptized anew
all who returned from an heretical body to the communion of the
Church. In this he was sustained by several councils that met
at Carthage under his presidency in 255, in the spring of 256, and
Sept. I., 256. But Pope Stephen I. rejected their views and de
clared: Si qui ergo a quacumqiie Jiaeresi venient ad vos , nihil
innovctur nisi quod tradition est, nt manus illis imponatur in paeni-
tentiam1. The ensuing persecution of Valerian and the death of the
Pope prevented a formal conflict between Stephen and Cyprian. The
latter was beheaded, September 14., 258, in the gardens of the pro
consular Villa Sexti, not far from Carthage; the Acta proconsul aria,
or official record of his execution, are still extant.

The Vita Caecilii Cypriani and Acta proconstdaria are usually published
with the works of Cyprian (ed. Hartel, iii [1871]. xc — cxiv). - - C. Suys-
kenus , De S. Cypriano, in Acta SS. Sept., Arenice, 1761, iv. 191 — 348.
Fr. IV. Rettberg, Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus, Gottingen, 1831. Fr. Boh-
ringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, 2. ed., iii— iv. Die lateinisch-
afrikanische Kirche : Tertullianus, Cyprianus, Stuttgart, 1864, reprinted 1873.
C. E. Freppel , St. Cyprien , Paris, 1865; 3. ed. 1890. J. Peters, Der
hi. Cyprian von Karthago, Ratisbon, 1877. -B- Fechtrup, Der hi. Cyprian,
I, Minister, 1878. E. Wh. Benson, Cyprian, London, 1897. P. Monceaux,
Histoire litteraire de 1'Afrique chretienne. II: St. Cyprien et son temps,
Paris, 1902. Cf. H. Grisar, Cyprians «Oppositions-Konzil» gegen Papst
Stephan, in Zeitschr. ftir kathol. Theol. (1881), V. 193 — 221 (He holds
that the decision of Stephen was issued not before, but after the council of
September i. 256). - - y. Ernst, War der hi. Cyprian exkommuniziert ?
Ib., 1894, xviii. 473—499 (he was not). Id., Der angebliche Widerruf des
hi. Cyprian in der Ketzertauffrage, ib., 1895, xix- 234~ 272- F- Kemper,
De vitarum Cypriani, Martini Turonensis, Ambrosii , Augustini rationibus
(Dissert.), Mlinster, 1904.

1 Cypr., Ep. 74, I (ed. Hartel}.

192

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

2. HIS WRITINGS. -- The writings of Cyprian, collected at a very
early date, were read with diligence and zealously multiplied. Pontius
himself possessed a collection of the treatises of Cyprian and has
left us a rhetorical paraphrase of their titles or themes (Vita c. 7).
It is both interesting and suggestive to note that in an ancient and
anonymous Catalogue of the Libri Canonici of the Old and New
Testaments (derived from a copy of the same made in 359) the
writings of Cyprian, both treatises and letters, are also indicated,
with the number of lines contained in each (cum indiculis versuum).
St. Jerome felt that he was not bound to furnish a catalogue of the
writings of Cyprian: Huius ingenii superfluum est indie em texere,
cum sole clariora sint eiits opera1. These works are still extant
in almost countless manuscripts, some of which reach back to the
sixth century. So far as we know, only a few of his letters have
been lost.

His writings fall spontaneously into two groups: treatises (sermones,
libelli, tractatus) and letters. The voice that resounds in both groups
is that of a bishop and a shepherd of souls. He is a man of prac
tice and not of theory, a man of faith and not of speculation. When
he takes up the pen, it is in behalf of practical aims and interests;
thus, where oral discourse is insufficient, he hastens to succour the
good cause with his writings. He does not go far afield in theoretical
discussion, but appeals to the Christian and ecclesiastical sentiments
of his hearers, and bases his argument on the authority of the Sacred
Scriptures. He exhibits on all occasions a spirit of moderation and
mildness and a remarkable power of organization. He never loses
himself in pursuit of intangible ideals but follows consistently the
aims that he has grasped with clearness and decision. St. Augustine
outlined his character correctly when he called him a Catholic bishop
and a Catholic martyr (catholicum episcopum, catholicum martyr em)*.
The central idea of his life is the unity of the Catholic Church; it
has been rightly said that this concept is like the root whence issue
all his doctrinal writings. Indeed, he is nowhere so independent and
original as in his work De catholicae ecclesiae unit ate. In his other
works he very frequently borrows from Tertullian3; we learn from
the same source that he read the works of that writer every day. It
was his wont when calling on his secretary for a book of Tertullian
to exclaim: Da magistrum^. At the same time, whatever the degree
of his literary dependency, his own personality is apparent in every
one of his writings. The thoughts of Cyprian may be close akin to
the thoughts of Tertullian, but the form in which the bishop of
Carthage clothes these thoughts differs widely from the style of
Tertullian. The diction of Cyprian is free and pleasing, and flows

1 De viris ill., c. 67. 2 Aug., De bapt., iii. 3, 5.

3 Hur., Ep. 84, 2. -1 Hie?:, De viris ill., c. 53.

§ 51- ST. CYPRIAN. 193

in a tranquil and clear, almost transparent stream 1. His language is
at all times enlivened and exalted by the warmth of his feelings.
Quite frequently the page is colored by images and allegories chosen
with taste and finished with skilful attention to the smallest detail;
not a few of them became more or less the common places of later
ecclesiastical literature.

The Catalogue of the Libri Canonid and the works of Cyprian, be
longing to the year 359, was first edited by Th. Mommsen , in Hermes
(1886), xxi. 142 — 156; cf. (1890), xxv. 636 — 638. On the same theme see
W. Sanday and C. H. Turner, in Studia biblica et ecclesiastica , Oxford
1891, iii. 217 — 325. K. G. Gotz, Geschichte der cyprianischen Literatur bis
zu der Zeit der ersten erhaltenen Handschriften (Inaug. -Diss.), Basle,
1891. -- On the manuscripts of Cyprian cf. Hartel, in his own edition
(1871), iii. i — LXX; also Harnack, Geschichte der altchristl. Literatur, i. 697
to 701. C. H. Turner, The original order and contents of our oldest
Ms. of St. Cyprian, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), iii. 282 — 285; A
newly discovered leaf of a fifth-century manuscript of St. Cyprian, ib., iii.
576 — 578; Our oldest manuscripts of St. Cyprian: The Turin and Milan
Fragment, ib. , iii. 579 — 584. Dom Ramsay, Our oldest manuscripts of
St. Cyprian, ib., iii. 585 — 594.

The complete works of Cyprian were first published by J. Andreas,
Rome, 1471. Then followed the editions of D. Erasmus, Basle, 1520; J. Pa-
meliuSj Antwerp. 1568 ; M. Rigaltius, Paris, 1648 ; J. Fell and J. Pearson, Ox
ford, 1682; Stephen Baluzius and Pr. Maranus, Paris, 1726. The edition of
Migne (PL. iii — v) reproduces, very incorrectly, the text of Baluzius and
Maranus. The most recent and the best edition of the works of St. Cyprian
is that of W, von Hartel , Vienna, 1868 — 1871, in three parts (Corpus
scriptorum eccl. Lat. , iii, pars i — iii). For a criticism of the Hartel
edition cf. P. de Lagarde, in Gottinger Gelehrten Anzeigen (1871), pp. 521
to 543 (reprinted in P. de Lagarde , Symmikta, Gottingen, 1877, pp. 65
to 78). -- G. Mercati, D'alcuni nuovi sussidii per la critica del testo di
S. Cypriano, Rome, 1899. A German version of most of the treatises was
published by U. Ukl, Kempten, 1869, and all the letters by J. Niglutsch
and A. Egger, ib. , 1879 (Bibl. der Kirchenvater). - - Le Provost, Etude
philologique et litteraire sur St. Cyprien, Pans, 1889. E. W. Watson, The
style and language of St. Cyprian, in Studia bibl. et eccles., Oxford, 1896,
iv. 189 — 324. L. Bayard, Le latin de St. Cyprien, Paris, 1902. E. de
Jonghe , Les clausules de Saint Cyprien, in Muse'e Beige (1902), vi. 344
to 363.

For the doctrine of St. Cyprian cf. J. Peters , Die Lehre des hi. Cy
prian von der Einheit der Kirche, Luxemburg, 1870. J. H. Reinkens,
Die Lehre des hi. Cyprian von der Einheit der Kirche, Wiirzburg, 1873.
De Leo , In librum S. Cypr. De imitate ecclesiae disquisitio critico-theo-
logica, Naples, 1877. O. Ritschl , Cyprian von Karthago und die Ver-
fassung der Kirche, Gottingen, 1885. J. de la Rochclle, L'idee de 1'eglise
dans St. Cyprjen, in Revue d'histoire et de litterature religieuses (1896),
i. 519 — 533. P. v, Hoensbroech, Der romische Primat bezeugt durch den
hi. Cyprian, in Zeitschr. fiir kathol. Theol. (1890), xiv. 193 — 230; Id., Zur
Auffassung Cyprians von der Ketzertaufe, ib. (1891), xv. 727 — 736. J. Ernst,
Zur Auffassung Cyprians von der Ketzertaufe, ib. (1893), xvii. 79 — 103.
K. G. Gotz, Die Bufilehre Cyprians, Konigsberg, 1894. K. Miiller, Die Buli-

1 Lact., Div. Inst., v. i, 25; liter., Ep. 58, 10.
BARDENHEV/ER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 13

194

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

institution in Karthago unter Cyprian, in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (1895
to 1896), xvi. i — 44, 187 — 219. K. G. Gotz, Das Christentum Cyprians, Gieften,
1896. K. H. Wirth y Der «Verdienst»-Begriff in der christl. Kirche nach
seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung dargestellt; II: Der «Verdienst»-Begriff
bei Cyprian, Leipzig, 1901. A. Melardi, S. Cypriano di Cartagine: con
tribute all' apologetica latina del 3. secolo, Potenza, 1901. --- P. Corssen,
Der cyprianische Text der Acta apostol. (Progr.), Berlin, 1892. J. Heiden-
reich, Der neutestamentliche Text bei Cyprian verglichen mit dem Vulgata-
text, Bamberg, 1900. A. Harnack, Cyprian als Enthusiast, in Zeitschr. fur
die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1902), iii. 177 — 191. P. St. John, A dis
puted point in St. Cyprian's attitude towards the Primacy, in American
Ecclesiastical Review (1903), xxix. 162 — 182. J. P. Knaabe , Die Pre-
digten des Tertullian und Cyprian, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (1903),
Ixxvi. 606 — 639.

3. TREATISES. - Pontius mentions1 eleven or twelve treatises
of Cyprian in the following, perhaps also the chronological, order:
a) Ad Donatum, an outpouring of his heart addressed to an other
wise unknown friend, for whom he depicts the new life entered on
by baptismal regeneration; it was probably composed shortly after
his conversion. The poetical form and the style of the treatise betray
the former rhetorician2, b) De habitu virginum (in the Catalogue
of 359: Ad virgines], a pastoral letter to women, especially to those
virgins who had dedicated themselves to the service of the Lord.
Cyprian calls them «the blossoms on the tree of the Church » (c. 3).
He puts them on their guard particularly against vanity in dress.
This treatise resembles very much the De cultu feminarum of Tertullian.
c) De lapsis, composed in the spring of 251, immediately after the
persecution of Decius and his own return to Carthage. In it he
laments most touchingly the apostasy of so many brethren ; their recon
ciliation must depend on a good confession and the performance of
a corresponding penance, d) To the same year belongs the immortal
work De catholicae ecclesiae imitate, a forcible exposition and defence
of the Church, to which alone were made the promises of salvation,
and not to the schisms at Rome and Carthage. Christ founded His
Church on one, on Peter ; the unity of the foundation guarantees that of
the edifice. Schism and heresy are the weapons of Satan. That person
cannot ha.ve God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother
(habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem,
c. 6). e) The treatise of Cyprian De dominica oratione, written about
the beginning of 252, is similar in its contents to Tertullian's De
oratione, and is important chiefly for its lengthy exposition of the Lord's
Prayer (cc. 7—27), a feature that made it much beloved in Christian
antiquity3, f) Ad Demetrianum, probably composed early in 252, and
markedly apologetic in tendency. The sufferings of these unhappy
times, war, pestilence and famine, which the heathen to whom he

Vita c- 7- 2 Aug., De doctr. christ., iv. 14, 31.

'•' ////., Comm. in Matth., v. i.

§ 51- ST. CYPRIAN. 195

writes attributed to the Christian contempt of the gods, are really
divine punishments, inflicted on account of the obstinacy and wickedness
of the heathens, and in particular of their persecution of the Christians.
g) The De mortalitate owes its origin to a pestilence that raged at
Carthage and in the neighborhood, especially from 252 — 254. It is
such a discourse of consolation as a bishop might deliver, and breathes
in every line a magnanimity of soul and a power of faith that are
most touching. The fact that the pestilence carried off both the
faithful and the unbelievers ought not to surprise the former, since
by word and example the Scripture makes known to all Christians
that it is their especial destiny to suffer trial and tribulation. Temptation
is only the prelude of victory, trial an occasion of merit, and death
the transit to a better life, h) The De op ere et eleemosynis, an ex
hortation to efficacious charity towards our neighbor, owes its origin,
probably, to similar circumstances. Almsgiving is, in a certain sense,
a means of obtaining grace; it appeases the divine wrath and atones
for our postbaptismal faults and entitles us to a higher degree of
celestial happiness, i) De bono patientiae was written during the
conflict concerning heretical baptism *, very probably in the summer of
256 in the hope of calming the irritation and anger of his opponents,
and as a pledge of the author's own anxiety for the restoration of
peace. It draws largely on the De patientia of Tertullian. k) De
zelo et livore was probably meant to complete the preceding treatise;
it is at once the work of a reconciling arbiter and a deciding
judge. Envy and jealousy are poisonous growths that often strike
deep roots in the soil of the Church, and bring forth the most de
plorable fruits: hatred, schism, dissatisfaction, insubordination. 1) Ad
Fortunatum is a collection of passages from Holy Writ put together
at the request of the recipient, and likely to confirm the faithful soul
in the tempest of persecution, which we assume to be that of Valerian,
that had been raging since the middle of 257. Thirteen theses
relative to this grievous trial are set forth ; each of them is con
firmed by quotations from the Bible, m) Pontius appears to have
been acquainted with another treatise that encouraged confessors to
be brave unto the end; but it has not been possible to identify it
with any certainty.

J. G. Krabinger published excellent editions of the DC catholicae ec-
clesiae imitate, De lapsis, De habitu virginum, Tubingen, 1853, also of the
other treatises, Ad Donatum , De dominica pratione , De mortalitate , Ad
Demetrianum, DC opere et eleemosynis, De bono patientiae, De zelo et livore,
Tubingen, 1859. // Hwter, Ss. Patr. opusc. select., contains in vol. I:
Ad Demetr. and De cath. ecd. unit. ; in vol. II : De dom. orat. \ in vol. IV :
De mortal., De op. et eleem. and De bono pat.; in vol. V: DC lapsis. On
the De opere et eleemosynis cf. E. W. Watson, in Journal of Theol. Studies
(1901), ii. 433 — 438. K. G. Gotz has tried to show, but without success, in

1 Cypr., Ep. 73, 26.

13*

ICj6 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

Texte und Untersuchungen, xix, new series (1899) iv. ic. , that the brief
letter Donatus Cypriano (ed. Hartel, iii. 272), hitherto held to be spurious,
is really the beginning of the treatise Ad Donatum. Dom Ramsay, An
Uncial Fragment of the Ad Donatum of St. Cyprian, in Journal of Theol.
Studies (1902), iv. 86—89. Concerning De hab. virg. cf. J. Haussleiter,
in Commentationes Woelfflinianae, Leipzig, 1891, pp. 377— 389. B. Aube,
L'Eglise et 1'Etat dans la seconde moitie du me siecle. Paris, 1885, PP- 3°5 n~>
calls in doubt, without any good reason, the genuineness ot Ad Demetrianum.
In the Revue Benedictine (1902), xix. 246 — 254, J. Chapman began a
study on the well-known interpolations in De catholicae ecdesiae unitate in
favor of the Roman Church, hitherto never submitted to a close exami
nation ; Id. , The interpolations in St. Cyprian's De unitate ecclesiae , in
Journal of Theol. Studies (1904), v. 634—636; cf. E. W. Watson, The
interpolations in St. Cyprian's De unitate ecclesiae, ib. , v. 432 — 436. -
P. Franchi de' Cavalieri, Un nuovo libello originale di libellatici della per-
secuzione deciana, in Miscellanea di storia e cultura eccles. (1904). L. Cha-
balier, Les lapsi dans 1'Eglise d'Afrique au temps de Saint Cyprien (These),
Lyon, 1904.

4. TREATISES (CONTINUED). - - The work Ad Quirinum in three
books, known formerly as Testimoniorum libri adversus Judaeos,
contains a demonstration of the rejection of the Jews and the vocation
of the Christians (book i), a sketch of Christology (book ii), and an
introduction to a Christian and virtuous life (book iii, probably a later
addition). At the beginning of each book are several theses, each of
which, after the manner of the treatise Ad Fortunatum, is in its turn
proved by a series of citations from Holy Writ. The first express mention
of the work is found in the afore-mentioned Catalogue of the year 359.
Before that date several ancient writers (Pseudo-Cyprian Adversus
aleatores, Com median, Lactantius, Firmicus Maternus) had already
made good use of its Scriptural treasures. The work is certainly
authentic. The tractate Quod idola dii non sint is largely a com
pilation from the Octavius of Minucius Felix and the Apologeticum
of Tertullian. It is first mentioned by St. Jerome1. The authorship
of Cyprian is uncertain. Haussleiter maintains, but without success,
the authorship of Novatian.

B. Dombart, Uber die Bedeutung Commodians fur die Textkritik der
Testimonia Cyprians, in Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1879), xxii. 374
to 389. For the genuineness of the third book Ad Quirinum cf. J. Hauss
leiter, in Comment. Woelfflin. (1891), pp. 377 ff. Dom Ramsav, On early
insertions in the third book of St. Cyprian's Testimonia, in Journal of Theol.
Studies (1901), ii. 276—288. See also C. H. Turner, Prolegomena to the
Testimonia of St. Cyprian, ib. (1905), vi. 246—270. Concerning the origin
of Quod idola dii non sint see Haussleiter, in Theol. Literaturblatt (1894),
xv. 481—487.

5. THE LETTERS OF CYPRIAN. - The collection of the Letters
of Cyprian contains, in the latest editions, eighty-one pieces or
numbers, sixty-five of which are from his hand ; the others are mostly

1 EP- 70, 5-

§ 51. ST. CYPRIAN. 197

letters addressed to him. By reason of its very copious contents this
collected correspondence of Cyprian is a primary source of authori
tative information concerning the life and discipline of the primitive
Church. All the letters date from the period of his episcopal rule in
Carthage (248/249 — 2 5 8). In the Vienna or Hartel edition of 1 87 1 , they
are numbered according to the Oxford recension of 1682; but later
researches render necessary certain modifications in the accepted order
of the correspondence. The letters may be divided into the following
groups: a) Letters whose dates cannot be ascertained; they are I — 4
and 63 (ed. Hartel); they contain no references to contemporary
persons or events, and probably were all composed before the per
secution of Decius. Letter 63, entitled in the manuscripts ZV sacra-
mento dominici calicis , is a precious confirmation of the traditional
Catholic doctrine concerning the sacrificial character of the Eucharist.
b) Letters sent to Carthage in the first period of the Decian per
secution (250); they are 5 — 7 and 10 — 19, and were addressed from
his hiding place to the clergy and the faithful of the city. They
contain exhortations to prudence, to perseverance on the part of the
confessors, to care of the poor, and also some reproaches and de
cisions in the matter of the lapsi (15 — 19). c) The correspondence
of Cyprian (representing the clergy of Carthage) with the Roman
clergy in whose hands lay the government of the Church during the
vacancy between the death of Fabian and the succession of Cornelius
(Jan. 250 to March 251). In all there are twelve of these letters:
8 9 20 21 22 27 28 30 31 35 36 37. In letter 20 Cyprian justifies
his flight and explains his manner of dealing with the lapsi; he
returns to the same subject in letters 27 and 35. In letters 30 and 36,
the Roman clergy, by the hand of Novatian, assure Cyprian that
they are in full agreement with him as to the treatment of the lapsi.

d) Letters sent to Carthage in the last period of the Decian per
secution (250 — 251); they are 23 — 26 29 32 — 34 38 — 43. Of these
fourteen letters twelve were written by Cyprian; with the exception
of two they were addressed to the clergy and the faithful of Carthage.
The last three (41 — 43) deal with the schism of Felicissimus.

e) Letters of the years 251 — 252, relative to the troubles occasioned
by the schism of Novatian, and numbered 44—55. Scarcely had
Cyprian been accurately informed of what was occurring at Rome,
when he came out with decisive energy in favor of the legitimate
pope Cornelius; he could not, however, check the spread of the
schism into Africa. Among the twelve letters of the group are six
from Cyprian to Cornelius and two replies from the latter (49 50).

f) Letters of the years 252 — 254, numbered 56 — 62 64 — 66,; the
contents of which are of a miscellaneous nature. Letter 57 was sent
by a Synod of Carthage 253 (?) to Pope Cornelius apropos of the lapsi;
letter 64 was written by a Carthaginian provincial Synod in 252 (?) to

198 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

a certain bishop Fidus, and treats mostly of the baptism of children,
g) Letters of the years 254 — 256, numbered 67 — 75. Letter 67 is a
sy nodical letter in the matter of Basilides and Martial, Spanish bishops,
who had been deposed as lapsi; while letters 69 — 75 deal with the
validity of heretical baptism. Letter 70 represents the opinions of the
Synod of Carthage held in 255, and letter 72 the decision of the spring
Synod of 256, both dealing with the subject of heretical baptism.
There has also been preserved an extract from the minutes of the
Synod of Carthage, September i. 256, in which the invalidity of
heretical baptism was again asserted (Sententiae episcopormn numero
LXXXVII de Jiaercticis baptizandis). It is usually placed not among
the letters, but among the treatises of Cyprian. Letter 74 reveals in
all its fulness the difference of opinion between Cyprian and Pope
Stephen. Concerning letter 75 cf. § 47, 7. h) Letters written during the
persecution of Valerian (257- 258) and numbered 76 — Si. In letter 76
we have an admirable message of consolation from the exiled bishop
to the martyrs in the mines. In letter Si the shepherd of Carthage,
while awaiting a martyr's death, sends to his flock a final salutation.

For the chronology of the Letters of Cyprian see O. Ritschl , De
epistulis Cypriani-cis (Dissert, inaug.), Halle, 1885. Id., Cyprian von Kar-
thago und die Verfassimg der Kirche, Gottingen, 1885, pp. 238 — 250.
P. Monceaux, Chronologic des oeuvres de St. Cyprien et des conciles Afri-
cains du temps, in Revue de Philologie (1900), xxxii, also the larger work
of Monceaux quoted above (i of this §). L. Nelke, Die Chronologic der
Korrespondenz Cyprians und der pseudo-cyprianischen Schriften Ad No-
vatianum und Liber de rebaptismate (Dissert.), Thorn, 1902. - - For the
correspondence of Cyprian and the Roman clergy during the year 250 see
A. Harnack, in Theol. Abhandlungen, C. v. Weizsacker gewidmet, Frei
burg, 1892, pp. 1—36. Concerning letter 8 see J. Haussleiter, Der Auf-
bau der altchristl. Literatur, Berlin, 1898, pp. 16—33. Letters 8 21 22
and 23 24 are written in popular Latin; they have been edited anew by
A.Miodotiski, Anonymus adv. aleatores, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1889, pp. 112
to 126. On Letter 42 cf. E. Watson, Cyprianica, in Journal of Theol. Studies
(1902—1903), iv. 131, and J. Chapman, The order of the Treatises and
Letters m the Mss. of St. Cyprian, ib., iv. 103—123.

The Sententiae episcoporum are found in Hartel , 1. c., i. 433—461.
Nelke, 1. c., locates their composition about 255. The synodal letters 57
64 67 70 72 and the Sententiae are also found in Routh, Reliquiae sacrae
(2) in. 93 — 131; for the annotationes see pp. 132 — 217.

A Greek version of the Sententiae was first published (complete) by

P. de Lagarde, Reliquiae iuris eccles. antiquissimae graece, Leipzig, 1856,

PP- 37— 55- The lost letters of Cyprian are discussed by Harnack, Gesch.

altchristl. Litteratur, i. 692. Id. , Uber verlorene Briefe und Akten-

sich aus der cyprianischen Briefsammlung ermitteln lassen, in

lexte und Lntersuchungen, new series, Leipzig, 1902, viii. 2. Fr. v. Soden,

cypriamsche Briefsammlung. Geschichte ihrer Entstehung und Uber-

heferung, ib., new series, Leipzig, 1904, x. 3.

6. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. - The glorious name of Cyprian was
on invoked to cover many an supposititious composition, a) The

§ 51. ST. CYPRIAN.

De laude martyrii, a bombastic sermon in praise of martyrdom,
reminding one of Vergil rather than of Holy Writ, must be looked on
as spurious, if only because of its style. Nevertheless, it figures among
the works of Cyprian in the Catalogue of 359. Harnack's ascription
of the authorship to Novatian has been refuted by Weyman.
b) Adversus Judaeos, also a sermon, which in vigorous rhetorical
diction exhorts Israel to enter into itself and do penance ; it is likewise
quoted as a work of Cyprian in the Catalogue of 359. It was formerly
supposed that the Latin text was a translation from the Greek, but
it is itself the original. The author must be sought for, with Harnack
and Landgraf, among the friends of Novatian ; possibly it was written
by Novatian himself, c) De montibus Sina et Sion, written in popular
Latin, contains some obscure remarks on the relations of the Old
and New Testaments. Harnack refers it to the first half of the third
century, d) De spectaculis , against the frequentation of heathen
plays and theatres, is based on the homonymous work of Tertullian.
The introduction shows that it was written by a bishop living at
some distance from his flock. Wolfflin holds it to be a genuine
work of Cyprian; Weymann and Demmler maintain that it belongs
to Novatian. e) De bono pudicitiae, written very probably by the
author of De spectaculis, is a spirited elogium of chastity. Matzinger
failed to establish the authorship of Cyprian, while Weymann and
Demmler argue well for the authorship of Novatian. f) Ad Nova-
tianum, against his rigoristic views; internal evidence (c. 6) shows
that it was written shortly after the persecution of Gallus and Volusian
(251 — 253). Harnack maintains, without sufficient proof, that it is from
the pen of Pope Sixtus II. (257 — 258); however, there is not sufficient
evidence to show even that it was written in .Rome, g) De aleatoribiis,
rather Adversus aleatores, a sermon against dice-playing as an invention
of the devil, written in popular unpolished Latin but with vigor and
boldness. Harnack believed it to be a work of Pope Victor I. (§ 36, i),
and therefore «the oldest Christian work in Latin ». It was soon
observed, however, that the author knew and used writings of Cyprian,
especially Ad Quirinum. In the introductory phrases (c. i) the author
does not call himself pope, but rather only a bishop, and there is no
positive proof that he occupied an Italian see. h) De rebaptismate is
a polemical work in favor of the validity of heretical baptism and
against the theory and practice of Cyprian. The author was a bishop,
gifted with a taste for speculation ; possibly his name was Ursinus 1.
In his excellent researches, Ernst has shown that it was composed
in Africa, very probably in Mauritania, and in 256, a little before
the Synod of September I. of this year. Schiiler also agrees that it
was composed in that year, but in Italy, he thinks, and after the

1 Gennad, De viris ill., c. 27.

2QO FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

synod just mentioned. Nelke inclines to a date between 255 and 258;
probably the earlier figure, i) De pascha computus. In Hufmayr's
opinion it was written in the fifth year of Gordian, before the Easter
of 243 (c. 22), for the purpose of correcting the sixteen-year paschal
cycle of Hippolytus (§ 54, 6), by a cleric resident outside of Rome,

a) A. Harnack, Eine bisher nicht erkannte Schrift Novatians vom
Jahre 249 — 250 (« Cyprian », De laude martyrii), in Texte u. Untersuchungen,
Leipzig, 1895, xiii. 4b; cf., against Harnack, C. Weyman, in Lit. Rund
schau (1895), pp. 331 — 333. -- b) G. Landgraf, Uber den pseudo-cypria-
nischen Traktat «Adversus Iudaeos», in Archiv fur latein. Lexikographie
und Grammatik (1898), xi. 87 — 97; cf. Harnack, in Texte und Unter
suchungen, xx, new series (1900) v. 3, 126 — 135. - - c) For De montibus
Sina et Sion see Harnack, ib., 135 — 147. — d) and e) Ed. Wolff tin, Cyprianus
de spectaculis, in Archiv fur latein. Lexikographie und Grammatik (1892),
vii. i — 22. S. Matzinger, Des hi. Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus Traktat
De bono pudicitiae (Inaug.-Diss.), Niirnberg, 1892. Against Wolff lin and
Matzinger tf. Weyman, in Histor. Jahrb. (1892), xiii. 737 — 748; (1893), xiv.
330 f. , and A. Dcmmler, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1894), Ixxvi. 223 — 271.
- f) A. Harnack, Eine bisher nicht erkannte Schrift des Papstes Sixtus IT.
vom Jahre 257/8, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1895, xiii i, i
to 70; cf. ib., xx, new series (1900), v 3, 116 — 126. Against Harnack
see Julichcr, in Theol. Literaturzeitung (1896), pp. 19 — 22; Funk, in Theol.
Quartalschr. (1896), Ixxviii. 691 — 693; Benson, Cyprian, London, 1897, pp. 557
to 564. According to A. Rombold , in Theol. Quartalschr. (1900), Ixxxii.
546 — 60 1, Ad Novatianum was written by Cyprian in 255 or 256. L. Nelke
maintains (see no. 5 of this §) that very probably Pope Cornelius was its
author and wrote it about 252. • g) New separate editions of Adv.
aleatores were published by A. Miodonski , Erlangen and Leipzig, 1889
(with a German version), and by A. Hilgenfeld, Freiburg, 1889. A. Harnack,
Der pseudo-cyprianische Traktat De aleatoribus etc., in Texte und Unter
suchungen, Leipzig, 1888, v. i; cf. ib., xx, new series (1900), v 3, 112
to 116. Against Harnack see Funk, in Histor. Jahrb. (1889), x. i — 22,
and Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (1899), ii. 209
to 236; Haussleiter, in Theol. Literaturblatt (1889), pp. 41 — 43, 49 — 51,
and in Commentationes Woelfflinianae, Leipzig, 1891, pp. 386 — 389; Etude
critique sur 1'opuscule «De aleatoribus» par les membres du seminaire
d'histoire ecclesiastique etabli a 1'Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain,
1891, with appendix: Une lettre perdue de Saint Paul et le «De aleatori-
bus», Louvain, 1893. -- h) For De rcbaptismate see J. Ernst, in Zeitschr.
fur kathoL Theol. (1896), xx. 193—255 360—362; (1898), xxii. 179—180;
(1900), xxiv. 425—462; also in Histor. Jahrb. (1898), xix. 499—522 737
to 771. Cf. W. Schiller, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1897), xl.
555 — 608; A. Beck, in «Katholik» (1900), i. 40—64. Id., Kirchl. Studien
und Quellen, Hamburg, 1903, pp. i — 58, makes Sixtus II. author of De re-
bapttsmate, but doubts somewhat the genuineness of cc. 16— 18. — i) E. Huf-
mayr, Die pseudo-cyprianische Schrift «De pascha computus » (Progr.), Augs
burg, 1896.

Many other pseudo-cyprianic works were written after the time of
Constantine. For Ad Vigilium episcopum de iudaica incredtditate see § 16.
The De duodecim abusivis saeculi (ed. Hartel, iii. 152 — 173) still awaits an
investigator of its literary history. The De singularitate clericorum (Hartel, iii.
173—220) is identical (according to Dom Morin, in the Revue Benedictine
[1891], viii. 236 f.) with the Ad confessor es et virgines of the priest Macrobius,

§ 52. ARNOBIUS. 2O I

and was written about the middle of the fourth century (Gennad., De vir. ill.,
c. 5). A. Harnack, Der pseudocyprianische Traktat De singularitate cleri-
corum, ein Werk des donatistischen Bischofs Macrobius in Rom, in Texte
und Untersuchungen , new series, Leipzig, 1903, ix. 3, accepts and con
firms the thesis of Dom Morin. The De duplici martyrio ad Fortunatum
(Hartel, iii. 220 — 247) was unmasked by Fr. Lezius, in Neue Jahrb. fur deutsche
Theol. (1895), iv. 95 — no 184 — 243, and shown to be a daring forgery of
its first editor, Erasmus. - - For the poems, current also under the name
of Tertullian, De Genesi , De Sodoma and De lona , also for Ad Flavium
Felice 'm de resurrectione mortuorum cf. § 50, 8 ; for the poem Ad senator em
§88, 7; for De pascha § 87, 8. The Exhortatio de paenitentia , lacking
in Hartel's edition, and recently edited by A. Miodoriski (Cracow, 1893)
is a collection of scriptural texts made for the purpose of refuting the
rigorism of Novatian, and dates, according to C. Wunderer, Bruchstiicke
einer afrikanischen Bibeliibersetzung in der pseudo-cyprianischen Schrift
«Exhort. de paenit.» (Progr. , Erlangen, 1889), from about the year 400.
For other apocryphal works, lacking in Hartel, cf. Harnack, Gesch. der
altchristl. Literatur, i. 722 f. The Caena Cypriani (cf. § 30, 5) and two Ora-
tione.s {Hartel, iii. 144 — 151) are located by Harnack about the beginning
of the fifth century, and attributed to Cyprianus. Gallus (§ 88, 2), in Texte
und Untersuchungen, xix new series (1899), iy- 3^- Michel, Gebet und Bild,
Leipzig, 1902, pp. 77 ff., differs from Harnack. — On all the works in the
Appendix to Cyprian cf. P. Monceaux, Etudes critiques sur 1'appendice de
St. Cyprien, in Revue de Philol. (1902), xxxvi. 63 — 98, and also his Cyprien
in i of this §.

§ 52. Arnobius.

St. Jerome remarks1 that his name suggests a Greek origin. He
flourished in the reign of Diocletian (284 — 305) at Sicca in Africa
Proconsulates, where he was known as a distinguished professor of
rhetoric. By a dream (somniis) he was led to become a Christian.
In order to overcome the diffidence of the bishop to whom he applied
for reception into the Christian community, he published a polemical
work against heathenism which Jerome calls 2 Adversus gentes, but in
the only (ninth-century) manuscript that has reached us is entitled
Adversus nationes. Internal evidence shows that it was composed
during the persecution of Diocletian (303 — 305) or shortly afterwards
(cf. i. 13; ii. 5; iv. 36). The contents of the work fall into two
parts : the first two books are mostly taken up with an apology for
Christianity, while the other five are a polemical attack on heathenism.
In the first part he refutes the trite accusation that the Christians
are responsible for the actual evils of the time because they had
roused the anger of the gods. The religious spirit of the Christians
is guaranteed by their faith in a chief and supreme God (Deus prin-
ceps, Deus summus) and in Christ who died on the Cross as man,
but by His miracles proved Himself to be God. That the Christian
religion is the true one is proved by its rapid spread, by its influence
on the manners of barbarian peoples, and by its harmony with the

1 Chron. ad a. Abr. 2343 = A. D. 327. - De viris ill., c. 79.

2O2 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

opinions of the greatest philosophers. The mention of Plato, as in
many things a herald of Christian truth, furnishes the occasion for a
long and remarkable excursus on the soul (ii. 14 — 62). Passing thence
to his polemic against heathenism, he undertakes to show that the
heathen teaching concerning the divinity is both contradictory and
immoral (iii — v). In the sixth book he describes with caustic
severity the forms of heathen worship, the temples and the statues;
in the seventh book he treats of the sacrificial rites and ceremonies.
(The latter book seems really to close with c. 37. The following
chapters 38 — 51 are apparently sketches for some new work against
heathenism.) The work of Arnobius did not meet with warm ad
miration in later Christian times. The declamatory pathos of the old
rhetorician, his affected and involved phraseology, the multiplicity of
interrogations, become at length very wearisome to the reader 1, all the
more so as in Arnobius warmth of conviction and clearness of thought
are not prominent. He seems to have hastily put together his apology
for Christianity before he had got rid of remnants of heathenism.
His religious opinions offer a curious mixture of Christian and heathen
ideas : Christ is not equal to the Dcus summits. In the supposition
that the heathen gods really exist, they must be gods of a second
order, owing their existence and divine character to the God of the
Christians, to whose family they in a sense belong (i. 28; iii. 2 — 3;
vii. 35). The human soul is not the work of God, but of some other
celestial being. It is something half divine and half material (mediae
qualitatis, anceps ambiguaque natura), in itself perishable, but capable
by the grace of God of receiving an imperishable character (ii. 14 if.).
He draws from the didactic poem of Lucretius (De rerum natura)
his arguments against an absolute eternity, and from the Platonists
and Neoplatonists his arguments against the annihilation of the soul.
The second part of the work, especially books iii — v, has always at
tracted the attention of philologists because of its very copious mytho
logical information. He appears to have studied the Roman mythology
in the (lost) works of the Neoplatonist Cornelius Labeo, and Greek
mythology in the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria (§ 38, 3).

The text of Arnobius is based exclusively on Cod. Paris. 1661, of the
ninth century; cf. § 24, i. The Editio princeps is that of F. Sabaeus,
Rome, 1543. For later editions cf. Schoemmann , Bibliotheca historico-
literaria Patrum Latinorum, i. 160—175. NCW editions or reprints were
brought out by J. C. Orelli , 3 vols. , Leipzig, 1816—1817; Migne , PL.,
Paris, 1844, v; G. F. Hildebrand, Halle, 1844; Fr. Oehkr, Leipzig, 1846
(Gersdorf, Bibl.Patr. eccles. Lat. sel., xii). The best is that of A. Reifferscheid,
Vienna, 1875 (Corpus script, eccl. Lat., iv). Cf. Id., in Indices scholarum
Vratislav. 1877—1878, pp. 9—10; 1879 — 1880, pp. 8— 10. M. Bastgen,
Quaestiones de locis ex Arnobii Adv. nat. opere selectis (Dissert, inaug.),
Miinster, 1887. "~ German versions of Arnobius were made by Fr. A.

1 Hicr., Ep. 58, 10.

§ 53- LACTANTIUS. 2O3

v. Besnard, Landshut, 1842; J. Alleker, Trier, 1858. -- E. Freppel, Com-
modien, Arnobe, Lactance, Paris, 1893, pp. 28 — 93. On the diction of
Arnobius see C. Stange, De Arnobii oratione (Progr.), Saargemiind,, 1893;
J. Scharnagl, De Arnobii maioris latinitate (2 Progr.), Gorz, 1894 — 1895,
i — ii; P. Spindler, De Arnobii genere dicendi (Dissert. }, Strassburg, 1901.
- For the «sources» of Arnobius see G. Kettner, Cornelius Labeo (Progr.),
Naumburg, 1877 ; A. Rohricht , De Clemente Alex. Arnobii in irridendo
gentilium cultu deorum auctore (Progr.), Hamburg, 1893. F. Dal Pane,
Sopra la fonte di un passo (v. 18) di Arnobio, in Studi Italiani di Filo-
logia Classica (1901), ix. 30. -- For the doctrine of Arnobius see K. B.
Francke, Die Psychologic und Erkenntnislehre des Arnobius (Inaug.-Diss.),
Leipzig, 1878; A. Rohricht, Die Seelenlehre des Arnobius, Hamburg, 1893;
E. F. Schulze, Das Ubel in der Welt nach der Lehre des Arnobius (Inaug.-
Diss.), Jena, 1896; E. Vorontzow , Apologet Arnobii Afrikanei (Russian),
Kharkon (1904), ii. 319—338.

§ 53. Lactantius.

1. HIS LIFE. -•- Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius, for such was
probably his full name, was, according to St. Jerome *, a disciple of
Arnobius, and unquestionably a native of Africa, though local
Italian patriotism, without any evidence, claims the honor of his birth
for Firmum (Fermo), in the territory of Picenum. His parents were
heathens, and the date of his conversion to Christianity is unknown.
It is probable that he had already won fame in Africa as a rhetorician
when Diocletian made him professor of Latin rhetoric at Nicomedia,
the new capital of the empire. The persecution of Diocletian com
pelled him to quit this office; his subsequent life was probably one
of much privation. At an advanced age he appears in Gaul as the
tutor of Crispus, the son of Constantine. The time and place of his
death are unknown.

S. Brandt, Uber die dualistischen Zusatze und die Kaiseranreden bei
Lactantius. Nebst einer Untersuchung liber das Leben des Lactantius und
die Entstehungsverhaltnisse seiner Prosaschriften (four Essays), in Sitzungs-
berichte der phil.-histor. Klasse der kgl. Akad. der Wissensch. , Vienna,
1889—1891, cxviii — cxxv; cf. T. E. Mecchi , Lattanzio e la sua patria,
Fermo, 1875. P. Meyer, Quaestionum Lactahtiarum partic. i. (Progr.),
Jiilich, 1878. R. Pichon, Lactance. Etude sur le mouvement philosophique
et religieux sous le regne de Constantin, Paris, 1901.

2. HIS LITERARY LABORS. — Lactantius, like his master Arnobius,
wras more skilful in his onslaught upon heathenism than in his defence
of Christianity. Utinam, says Jerome 2, tarn nostra affinnare potuisset
quam facile aliena destruxit! Withal, he accomplished more than
Arnobius. He is more comprehensive and versatile in his literary
work, while his style is more chaste, natural and pleasing than that
of any of his contemporaries, vir omnium suo tempore eloquentissimus,
quasi quidam fluvius eloquenliae Tullianac^. The humanists called

1 De viris ill., c. 80; Chron. ad a. Abr. 2333. 2 Ep. 58, 10.

3 Hicr., Chron, ad a. Abr. 2333; Ep. 58, 10.

2O4 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

him the Christian Cicero, and in general exhibited an exaggerated
admiration for his writings. As early as the fifteenth century his
writings, extant in numerous and ancient codices, went through a
long series of editions. The real strength of Lactantius is in his
formal grace and elegance of expression; like his heathen model he
lacks solidity and depth. He had read extensively, and retained and
assimilated with great ease the learning of others, which he reproduced
in correct and polished phraseology. If we except St. Jerome, and
perhaps St. Augustine, no Christian writer of antiquity was so deeply
versed in Latin and Greek literature; but conversely his knowledge of
ecclesiastical literature, and still more so of the Scripture, was equally
meagre and imperfect. St. Jerome accuses him of downright imperitia
scripturarum, for failing to recognize a third person in the Divinity,
or the personal distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father
and the Son 1. He leaned towards Chiliasm 2, and his entire doctrinal
and ethical teaching is suffused with a peculiar dualism, best formu
lated in his thesis that evil is of necessity presupposed to good3.

The manuscript-tradition of the works of Lactantius is the subject of
an exhaustive study by Brandt in the prolegomena of his edition. The
oldest manuscripts are a Cod. Bononiensis of the sixth or seventh cen
tury (Div. inst., De ira Dei, DC opif. Dei, Epitome div. inst.) and a
Cod. Sangallensis rescriptus of the sixth or seventh century (Div. inst.).
The editio princeps appeared at Subiaco in 1465, it is the first dated
book printed in Italy. During the eighteenth century appeared the com
plete editions of Chr. A. Neumann, Gottingen, 1736; J. L. Buenemann,
Leipzig, 1739- J- B- Le Brun and N. Lenglet du Fresnoy, 2 vols., Paris,
1748; F. Eduardus a S. Xaverio, u vols., Rome, 1754 — 1759. The edition
of Le Brun and du Fresnoy is reprinted in Migne , PL. , Paris , 1 844 , vi
to vii). Brandt was the first to make a comprehensive and critical use
of the extant manuscripts : L. C. F. Lactanti opera omnia, rec. S. Brandt
et G. Laubmann, 2 vols., Vienna, 1890—1897 (Corpus script, eccles. Lat.
xix xxvii). - P. Bertold, Prolegomena zu Lactantius (Progr.), Metten,
1 86 1. Freppel, Commodien, Arnobe, Lactance, Paris, 1893, pp. 94 — 148.
- H. Limberg, Quo iure Lactantius appellatur Cicero christianus r (Dissert.
inaug.), Minister, 1896. H. Glacscncr, Several grammatical and philological
articles, in Musee Beige (1901), v. 5—27. S. Brandt, Lactantius und Lu
cretius, in Neue Jahrb. fur Philol. und Padag. (1891), cxliii. 225—259.
P. G. Frotscher, Des Apologeten Lactantius Verhaltnis zur griechischen
Philosophic (Inaug.-Diss.), Leipzig, 1895. -- E. Overlach , Die Theologie
des Lactantius (Progr.), Schwerin, 1858. M. E. Heinig, Die Ethik des Lac
tantius (Inaug.-Diss.), Grimma, 1887. Fr. Marbach, Die Psychologic des
Firmianus Lactantius (Inaug.-Diss.), Halle, 1889.

3. DIVINAE INSTITUTIONES. - His most important work is a
series of religious instructions in seven books , Divinarum institutio-
num libri VII, at once an apology and a manual of theology. The
purpose of the author is first to put to silence all the opponents

1 Comm. in Gal. ad iv. 6; Ep. 84, 7. * Div. inst., vii. 14 ff.

3 Cf. De ira Dei, c. 15.

§ 53- LACTANTIUS. 2O5

of the Christian faith. Proceeding then from the negative to the af
firmative, he undertakes to describe «the whole contents of the Chris
tian doctrine» (v. 4). The title itself is instructive; he borrowed
it from the current manuals of legal science1. The first two books,
De falsa religione and De origine err or is , are devoted to the
refutation of the superstitions of polytheism and to the demonstra
tion of monotheism as the only true religion. The third book,
De falsa sapientia, attacks the philosophy of the heathen, as being,
next to their false religion, the source of their errors. From the
mutually destructive systems of philosophy one turns with satisfaction
to God's revelation of Himself, which concept furnishes the transit
to the fourth book, De vera sapientia et religione. True wisdom
consists in the knowledge and worship of God ; these have been
given to mankind through Christ, the Son of God. The fifth book,
De iustitia , treats of that justice to which men return through
Christ. Its basis is that piety (pietas) which is rooted in the know
ledge of God , and its essence is that equity (aequitas) which sees
in all men children of God. The sixth book, De vero cultu, goes
to show that in the exercise of this justice lies the true worship of
God. Hereupon he explains the two essential qualities of all justice,
religio and misericordia vel humanitas. In the seventh book, finally,
he crowns his work with a description of heaven (De vita beata),
the reward of all true worship of God. Lactantius is the first among
the Western Christians to exhibit in a connected system the Chris
tian views of life and man. He knows and uses the works of
earlier apologists such as Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Cyprian and
Theophilus of Antioch. He quotes the Scripture occasionally from
St. Cyprian's so-called Testimonia adversus ludaeos , but abounds
still more in quotations from classic authors. This work was written
during the persecution of Diocletian and Galerius (305 — 310) in part
at Nicomedia and in part elsewhere (v. 2, 2; u, 15). The so-called
dualistic phrases found in some manuscripts, to the effect that God
willed and created evil (ii. 8, 6; vii. 5, 27) 2 are interpolations, but
according to Brandt inserted as early as the fourth century. Brandt
attributes to this interpolator certain more or less lengthy discourses
to Constantine, that are found in the same manuscripts (i. I, 12; vii.
27, 2 etc.); others hold them to be genuine elements of a second
edition of the work.

Brandt , Uber die dualistischen Zusiitze und die Kaiseranreden (see
§ 53, i). In favor of the genuineness of the dualistic additions see J. G. Th.
Miillcr, Quaestiones Lactantianae (Dissert, inaug.), Gottingen, 1875, and of
the discourses to Constantine J. Reiser, in Theol. Quartalschr. (i8gS), Ixxx.
548 — 588. — For the Scriptural quotations see the edition of Brandt, \. c.
(1890), i. xcvn ff. The date of composition is discussed by Lobmullcr,
in «Katholik» (1898), ii. i — 23.

1 Institutiones civilis iuris, i. i, 12. " Cf. De opificio Dei, c. 19, 8.

2O6 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

4. EPITOME DIV. INST. DE OPIFICIO DEI. DE IRA DEI. — At
the request of a certain Pentadius, whom he addresses as Pentadi

f rater, Lactantius prepared , about 315, a summary of his large
work and entitled it Epitome divinarum institutionum. It is really
a new, but abbreviated recension of the work. The suspicions oc
casionally manifested concerning its genuineness are nowise justified.
In the treatise De opificio Dei, addressed to Demetrianus, a former
disciple, and written before the Institutiones (about 304 ; cf. c. 6, 15;
15, 6; 20), Lactantius maintains against the Epicureans, that the
human organism is a « creation of God», a work of Providence.
After an anatomical and physiological description of the human body
and a teleological commentary on its constitution (cc. 5 — 13), he dis
cusses in the second part some psychological questions (cc. 16 — 19);
the dualistic addition in c. 19, 8 are discussed above (§ 53, 3).
Brandt is of opinion that Lactantius composed the first part of this
work on the basis of some Hermetic book. The treatise De ira
Dei, addressed to a certain Donatus, and written after the Institu
tiones (c. 2, 4 6; n, 2)1 is directed against the Epicurean doctrine
of the absolute indifference (apathia) of the divinity; from the very
nature of religion Lactantius deduces the necessity of a divine wrath.

The Epitome was translated into German by P. H. Janscn, Kempten,
1875 (Bibl- der Kirchenvater) ; the De ira Dei by R. Storf , ib.; the De
opificio Dei by A. Knappitsch , Graz, 1898. For the sources of the De
opif. Dei cf. Brandt, Wiener Studien (1891), xiii. 255 — 292.

5. DE MORTIBUS PERSECUTORUM. --In this work are narrated the
wretched deaths of the imperial persecutors of the Christians ; indeed,
its purpose is to show that the God of the Christians has truly
manifested his power and greatness against the enemies of His name
(c. i, 7). In the introduction it treats briefly of Nero, Domitian, Decius,
Valerian, and Aurelian. The closing days of Diocletian, Maximian,
Galerius, Severus and Maximinus are described with greater fulness.
The narrator writes from personal experience ; in the years 3 1 1 and
313 he was resident in Nicomedia (cc. 35 48; cf. c. i), where the
book was probably written in 314. The entire story breathes an
atmosphere of vivid personal impressions received during those days
of horror; it has not yet been proved that the narrator has any
where consciously perverted the truth of history. Only one (eleventh
century) manuscript of the work has reached us. It is entitled:
Lucn Caecihi liber ad Donatum confessoretn de mort. persec. In
many manuscripts Lactantius is called Lucius Caelius or Lucius Cae-
cilius, and we have seen already that he dedicated his treatise De
ira Dei to a certain Donatus. According to Jerome2, Lactantius
left a work De persecution which universal consent identifies with the

1 Cf. Div. inst., ii. 17, 5. 2 De viris ilLj c go

§ 53- LACTANTIUS. 2O/

De mortibus persecutorum. Finally there is a minute correspondence
of style and diction between this work and the other writings of
Lactantius. Its fundamental concept appears also in the Institutiones
(v. 23). Even the peculiar features of the work, its irritated senti
ment and impassioned tone are easily understood from the nature of
the subject-matter. The most recent editor, Brandt, stands almost
alone in maintaining that Lactantius is not the author of the De
mortibus persecutorum. There is no solid basis, however, for his
hypothesis that Lactantius spent the time from 311 to 313 in Gaul.

This work was first edited by Stephen Baluze, Paris, 1679 ; f°r new separate
editions we are indebted to Fr. Dilbner, Paris, 1863, 1879; Brandt, Vienna,
1897. It is reprinted in Hurtcr, SS. Patr. opusc. sel. , Innsbruck, 1873,
xxii. It was translated into German by P. H. Jansen , Kempten, 1875
(Bibl. der Kirchenvater). The question of authorship is discussed by Ad.
Ebert, in Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der kgl. sachs. Gesellsch. der
Wissensch. , Leipzig, 1870, xxii. 115 — 138 (for Lactantius); Brandt, Uber
die Entstehungsverhaltnisse der Prosaschriften des Lactantius (see § 53, i)
pp. 22 — 122 and in Neue Jahrb. fiir Philol. und Padag. (1893), cxlvii.
121 — 138 203 — 223 (against Lactantius); J. Belser, in Theol. Quartalschr.
(1892), Ixxiv. 246 — 293 439 — 464; (1898), Ixxx. 547 — 596 (for Lactantius);
O. Seeck, Gesch. des Untergangs der antiken Welt, Berlin, 1895, i. 426 — 430
(for Lactantius). -- J. Rothfuchs, Qua historiae fide Lactantius usus sit in
libroDe mort. persec. (Progr.), Marburg, 1862. Belser, Grammatisch-kritische
Erkliirung von Lactantius' «De mort. persec. » c. 34 (Progr.), Ellwangen,
1889. For minor articles of A. Crivellucci , A. Mantini and Brandt see
Studi Storici (1893), ii. 45— 48 374— 388 444—464; (1894), iii. 65 — 70;
(1896), v. 555 — 571. y. Kopp, Uber den Verfasser des Buches «De morti
bus persecutorum » (Dissert.), Munich, 1902 (for Lactantius).

6. DE AVE PHOENICE. SPURIOUS POEMS. - - The poem De av'e
Phoenice relates in eighty-five distichs the myth of the miraculous
bird that dwelt in the sacred grove of the Sun- God as his priest,
whence every thousand years it came on earth to mount its own
funeral pyre, and from its own ashes rose to a new life. There is
a long series of witnesses, beginning with Gregory of Tours 1, for the
authorship of Lactantius ; most modern critics admit it, even Brandt,
though he ascribes it not to the Christian but to the heathen period
of his life. Nevertheless, the work has a specific Christian color,
and both in matter and style exhibits many Christian peculiarities.
The Phoenix was looked on as a symbol of the resurrection. The
poem De resurrectione (De pascha) is not a work of Lactantius,
but rather of Venantius Fortunatus 2. The poem De passione Domini
belongs to the end of the fifteenth century.

De are Phoenice in Brandt's edition (1893), ii. i, 135 — 147; cf. xviii
to xxii. On the origin of the myth see H. Dechent , in Rhein. Mus. fiir
Philol., new series (1880), xxxv. 39 — 55; R. Loebe, in Jahrb. fiir protest.
Theol. (1892), xviii. 34 — 65; Brandt, in Rhein. Mus. fiir Philol., new series

1 De cursu stellarum, c. 12. ~ Cann., iii. 9.

2O8 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

(1892), xlvii. 390 — 403; A. Knappitsch, De L. C. F. Lactanti «ave Phoe-
nice» (Progr.), Graz, 1896 (with a German metrical version). The De
passione Domini is in Brandt, 1. c.; pp. 148 — 151; cf. xxii — xxxiii. C, Pas
cal, Sul carme «De ave Phoenice» attribute a Lattanzio, Napole, 1904.
For a collection of metrical enigmas see below § 53, 7 a.

7. LOST WRITINGS. FRAGMENTS. - - Lactantius intended to pu
blish a work against all heresies1, and another against the Jews2,
but he seems not to have carried out his purpose. Several other works
have perished : a) Symposium quod adolescentulus scripsit Africae *,
perhaps a discussion of grammatical or rhetorical questions in the
form of a banquet-dialogue. The title of Symposium may have been
the occasion for attributing to him one hundred metrical enigmas,
each in three hexameters, that are otherwise adjudged to a certain
Symphosius; b) Hodoeporicum (bdotxopixov) Africa usque Nicomediam
hexametris scriptum versibus^\ c) Grammaticus^ ; d) Ad Asclepiadem
libri duoQ; the recipient is probably identical with the homonymous
author of a work addressed to Lactantius , De providentia summi
Dei1 ; e) Ad Probum epistolarum libri quattuor^. This is perhaps
the collection of letters to which pope Damasus refers when he tells
us9 that Lactantius wrote letters in which he dealt mostly with
metre, geography and philosophy, but rarely touched on matters of
Christian theology; f) Ad Severum epistolariim libri duo^ ; g) Ad
Demetrianum (§ 53, 4) auditor em suum epistolarum libri duo^. The
letters treated of the Holy Ghost, and of other subjects (cf. § 53, 2).
h) In a codex of the eighth or ninth century there is a fragment on
divers passions — hope, fear, love, hatred etc. - - with the marginal
note Lactantius de motibus animi. It may be genuine, but cannot
be definitely assigned to any of his writings.

The collection of metrical enigmas is in Migne , PL., vii. 289—298.
It is not in the edition of Brandt; cf. Teuffel-Schwabe , Gesch. der rom.
Literatur, 5. ed. , pp. 1152 f. For the other works mentioned see the
quotations and fragments in Brandt, 1. c. (1893), ii. i, 155 — 160, with the
pertinent literature.

B. ROMAN WRITERS.
§ 54. Hippolytus.

i. His LIFE. - The authorship of the «Refutation of all Heresies»,

xara xaocov alpiazcov I'/^/oc, or Philosophumena (see § 54, 3), a large

and important work discovered in 1851, awakened much interest at

Since then the authorship of the work has been extensively,

but so far inconclusively, discussed. The first of its ten books was

' Div. inst, iv. 30, 14; De ira Dei. c. 2, 6. » Div inst ^ vii> 26

De viris ill., c. So. * Ib. 5 Ib 6 Ib

* Div. inst, vii. 4, 17. s Hier> L c ^ '

10 Hier., De viris ill., c. 80 ; cf. c. in. n Ib.

§ 54- HIPPOLYTUS. 2O9

long current under the name of Origen. That it could not be 'from
his pen was wellk-nown from the title of bishop (dpytepareia) which
the author gives himself in the preface, that being an office that
Origen never filled. In 1842 Mynoides Mynas brought to Paris from
Mount Athos a fourteenth-century manuscript containing books iv — x
of the work. They were edited by E. Miller in 1851, curiously enough
as a work of Origen. The second and third books are still lacking.
The authorship of Origen was at once rejected on all sides and five
other possible authors suggested. These were Hippolytus, Beron,
Cajus, Novatian and Tertullian. The preponderance of opinion was in
favor of Hippolytus, for whom Dollinger (1853) and Volkmar (1855)
pleaded with special success. It was easy to show that Beron,
against whom Hippolytus was said to have written (xara Bypawoq),
belonged at the earliest to the fourth century, nor could the claims
of the Anti-Montanist Cajus be maintained in face of the critical argu
ments opposed to it. In the course of the controversy the names
of Novatian and Tertullian were gradually abandoned. In a general
way the name of Hippolytus stands for the Philosophumena, as often
as it becomes necessary to refer to some definite person as author
of the work. It is true that this work is not mentioned in the ancient
catalogue of the writings of Hippolytus (§ 54, 2. But other writings
claimed as his by the author in the preface to the Philosophumena,
e. g. the so-called Syntagma (Philos. prooem.), the Chronicon (x. 30), and
the work on the nature of the Universe (x. 32), are otherwise known to
be works of Hippolytus. There is also a striking similarity between the
Philosophumena and other acknowledged writings of Hippolytus, e. g.
the work against Noetus, and DC Antichristo. Finally, the meagre
and contradictory information concerning Hippolytus that antiquity
has bequeathed us is placed in an entirely new light by the details
furnished in the Philosophumena concerning the life and times of its
author. Not only are the known facts of Hippolytus's life notably
increased, but the former accounts of him are rendered now for the
first time intelligible. In Western tradition Hippolytus had become the
centre of a legendary cycle, through the mazes of which it was difficult
to reach the kernel of historical truth. The Philosophumena put an
end to the almost unexampled confusion that hitherto had surrounded
his person. - - The Oriental tradition was right, according to this
work, in maintaining that Hippolytus, a disciple of St. Irenaeus1,
had really been a bishop of Rome. He was the rival of Pope Cal-
lixtus (217 — 222), the head of a schismatical party, and therefore
one of the first anti-popes known to history. It is true that our
only account of this situation comes from the Philosophumena itself
(ix. 7 ii 12), but we cannot therefore accuse its author of a de-

1 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 121.
BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 14

2IO FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

liberate intention to calumniate his adversary. Nevertheless, we must
carefully distinguish between the facts which are related and the coloring
that the narrative puts upon them. Callixtus appears in ecclesiastical
history as one of the most worthy among the popes. His adversary
was a subordinationist in doctrine, and in church discipline he held
a sectarian rigorism. Callixtus had softened the severe penitential dis
cipline by permitting those guilty of adultery or of fornication to be
again received into ecclesiastical communion, after performance of
the penance enjoined1. In other matters also he had shown himself
disposed to gentler measures, e. g. with regard to the reconciliation
of those who returned from heresy or schism, the treatment of un
worthy bishops, the advancement of bigamists to the higher ec
clesiastical offices, and the like. To Hippolytus all this savoured of
unprincipled levity (Philos. ix. 12), though he does not undertake to
justify his passionate denunciation of it. In so far as his views are
not the result of personal opposition to Callixtus, they can only
represent an erroneous concept of the nature and scope of ecclesiastical
authority, and a lack of sympathetic intelligence for the needs of
the time. He describes himself frequently as the most decided ad
versary of the Patripassian doctrine, of the Novatians, and of Sa-
bellius. But his own theology aroused criticism, and was declared by
Callixtus a pure ditheism (Philos. ix. 12). According to Hippolytus the
Logos existed first impersonally in the Father, undistinguished from
Him in substance; he was the unspoken word of the Father, kofOQ
TOQ; later, when the Father willed it, and as He willed it,
tyffev, xa&coc; -/jttltyffsy2, the Word came forth from the Father,
zpcxpopixoc, , as another than He, zrzpoQ. Only in the Incar
nation did He become the true and perfect Son of the Father. The
alleged relation between the Father and the Son is therefore strictly
subordinationist in character. Hippolytus does not hesitate even to say
(Philos. x. 33) that God, had He so willed, might have made God
also any man (or the man), instead of the Logos (el yap $zov ae
jj&etyae xotyaat, iduvaro- s/stQ TO~J M^oo TO TTapddeirfjtaj. The reproach
of ditheism is therefore in so far true that Hippolytus recognized a
distinction of substance between the Father and the Logos; the
latter was only genetically God. But when Hippolytus says of Callixtus
(Philos. ix. 12) that «he falls sometimes into the error of Sahellius
and sometimes into that of Theodotus», he can only mean that on
the one hand Callixtus maintained the equality and unity of nature
in the Father and the Son, without denying, as did Sabellius, the
distinction of persons; and on the other maintained the perfect hu
manity of the Redeemer, without denying His divinity, as did Theo-
dotus. The schism of Hippolytus did not spread ; even in Rome

Tert., De pudicit., c. I. 2 c i$oet., c. 10.

§ 54- HIPPOLYTUS. 211

his faction seems to have been short-lived. There are many reasons
for supposing that Hippolytus himself, shortly before his death,
put an end to the schism. In 235 he was banished to Sardinia
in the company of St. Pontianus, the second successor of Callixtus.
There, if not earlier and at Rome, Pope and Anti-pope appear to
have become reconciled. There, too, both succumbed to the suffer
ings and privations of their lot. Their bodies were finally interred
at Rome on the same day, August 13. in 236 or 237; the same
date was also chosen for the commemoration of both.

y. Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, Ratisbon, 1853. G. Volkmar,
Die Quellen der Ketzergeschichte bis zum Nicanum. i : Hippolytus und
die romischen Zeitgenossen, Ziirich, 1855. Hergenr other , Hippolytus oder
Novatian? in Osterreich. Vierteljahresschr. fur kathol. Theol. (1863), ii. 289
to 340 (be defends the authorship of Hippolytus). C. de Smedt S. J., Disser-
tationes selectae in primam aetatem historiae eccles., Gand, 1876, pp. 83
to 189 (for Hippolytus). Grisar, Bedarf die Hippolytusfrage einer Re
vision? in Zeitschr. fiir kathol. Theol. (1878), ii. 505—533 (for Novatian).
Funk, Uber den Verfasser der Philosophumenen , in Theol. Quartalschr.
(1881), Ixiii. 423 — 464; Id., Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Unter-
suchungen (1899), ii. 161 — 197 (for Hippolytus). y. B. de Rossi , in Bul-
lettino di archeologia cristiana, Ser. 3, a. vi (1881), 5 — 55; Ser. 4, a. i
(1882), 9 — 76, a. ii (1883), 60 — 65, maintains that Hippolytus did not die
in Sardinia but returned to Rome in the reign of Philippus Arabs (244 to
249) and took part in the schism of Novatian. In the persecution of Va
lerian (253 — 260) he was condemned as a Christian, and on his way to
death recognized the error of his ways and besought his friends to
return to the unity of the Church. C. Erbes , Die Lebenszeit des Hippo
lytus, in Jahrbticher f. protest. Theol. (1888), xiv. 611 — 656 (Hippolytus died
Jan. 29. /3O., 251). y. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part I (S. Cle
ment of Rome), London, 1890, ii. 317 — 477: Hippolytus of Portus (Hippo
lytus was a bishop of the floating population in the maritime town of
Portus, but resident at Rome). G. Picker, Studien zur Hippolytfrage, Leipzig,
1893 (supports the theses of Dollinger as against the objections of de Rossi
and Lightfoot). — The most important «testimonia antiquorum» concerning
Hippolytus are found in H. Achelis, Hippolytstudien, in Texte und Unter-
suchungen, Leipzig, 1897, xvi. 4, i — 62. K. J. Neumann, Hippolytus von
Rom in seiner Stellung zu Staat und Welt. Neue Funde und Forschungen
zur Geschichte von Staat und Kirche in der romischen Kaiserzeit, Leipzig,
1892, fasc. i. y. Drdseke, Zum Syntagma des Hippolytus, in Zeitschr. fiir
wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv. 58 — 80; Id. , Noe'tos und die Noetianer
in der Hippolytus-Refutatio ix. 6 — 10, ib. (1903), xlvi. 213 — 232.

2. HIS LITERARY LABORS. — Shortly before or after his death,
a marble statue was erected at Rome in honor of Hippolytus by
his schismatical followers. In 1551, during the progress of certain
excavations, it was discovered intact, with the exception of the head.
On either side of the chair in which the saint is seated his paschal
cycle has been inscribed , while on the rounded surface that unites
the back of the chair with the left side of the same are likewise
inscribed the titles of many of his works. This catalogue is com-

14*

212 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

pleted and illustrated by the accounts given in Eusebius1, St. Jerome2,
and other writers. The works of Hippolytus fill us with astonishment,
so extensive and varied are they, while for erudition no Western
contemporary can approach him. On occasions, however, he was
content to repeat himself, as is evident from a comparison of his
commentary on Daniel with his previous work De Antichristo. The
better and greater part of his labors was in the field of exegesis.
Photius praises3 the simplicity and clearness of his style, without
pronouncing it really Attic. At present, with the exception of a fe\v
imperfect works, we possess only fragments of Hippolytus, in Greek,
Latin , Syriac , Coptic , Arabic , Ethiopic , Armenian , and Slavonic.
The manuscript tradition of his writings could scarcelly be more
broken and fragmentary; their remnants turn up in the remotest
parts of the antique world. Often, indeed, these fragments must be
re-shaped and their text cleansed from foreign scoria ; only here and
there can the original text be restored with comparative freedom
from gaps and breaks.

The statue is reproduced in F. X. Kraus, Real-Encyklopadie der christl.
Altertiimer, Freiburg, 1882—1886, i. 660 — 664; cf. J. Picker, Die alt-
christlichen Bildwerke im christlichen Museum des Laterans, Leipzig, 1890,
pp. i66ff. Marucchi, Guida del Museo Cristiano Lateranense, Roma, 1898,
pp. 79 ff. -- His writings and their fragments (except the Philosophumena)
were collected by J. A. Fabricius, S. Hippolyti episc. etmart. opp. Gr. etLat.,
2 vols., Hamburg, 1716—1718; Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr. (1766), ii; Migne,
PG. (1857), x; P. A. dc Lagarde , Hippolyti Rom. quae feruntur omnia
graece, Leipzig and London, 1858. A new edition of the entire works of
Hippolytus is appearing in «Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der
drei ersten Jahrhunderte» : Hippolytus' Werke, i: Exegetische und homi-
letische Schriften, herausgegeben von G. N. Bonwetsch und H. Achelis,
Leipzig, 1897; cf. Catholic University Bulletin, Washington, 1900, vi. 63
to 76. Collections of Syriac fragments are met with in de Lagarde,
Analecta Syriaca, Leipzig and London, 1858, pp. 79—91, also in Pitra,
Analecta sacra (1883), iv. 36—64 306-331. Armenian fragments, in
Pitra, \. c., n. 226—239; iv. 64—71 331—337. For Old-Slavonic texts
cf. Bonwetsch, in Harnack, Gesch. der altchristlichen Literatur, i. 893 — 897.

- Brief studies on all the literary labors of Hippolytus, in C. P. Caspar i,
Ungedruckte Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, Christiania, 1875,

.377—409; Lightfoot, 1. c. (§ 54, i), ii. 388-405, and Harnack, 1. c.,
i. 605—646; Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de 1'figlise, 2. e'd., Paris 1006
tome i, c. xvii.

3. THE PIIILOSOPIIUMENA AND OTHER POLEMICAL WORKS. -- As
we have already remarked (§ 54, i) the Philosophumena are not men
tioned, neither on the statue of Hippolytus nor in the catalogue of his
works by Eusebius and Jerome. Photius calls them * «the labyrinth»,
rbv Xaftijpw&ov, and Theodoret of Cyrus 5 calls the work of Hippo
lytus against Artemon «the little labyrinth», <> aptxpbq Xa^pt^oq. It is

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 22. 2 De viris ilL> c 6l 3 B.bl Cod I2i 2Q2

Bibl. Cod. 48. 5 Haeret. fabul. comp. ii. 5.

§ 54- HIPPOLYTUS. 213

not improbable that the author called himself his work «the labyrinth
of heresies» (cf. x. 5 : roy hapopivftoy ra)v alplffscov'). In the course
of the work (ix. 8) he refers to the first four books as follows : Iv role,
<pdoffo<poufi.iyotQ sc. dSfpafftv, i. e. «in the description of philosophical
doctrines». The traditional extension of the title «Philosophumena»
to the whole work rests on no intrinsic evidence. In the preface he
proposes to convince heretics that they have not taken their teach
ings from the Holy Scriptures or the Tradition but from the wisdom
of the Hellenes, Ix TTJQ *EXM)va)v ffopiaQ. Hence the comprehensive
account of Hellenic philosophy to which the first four books are
devoted. In the first book there is an outline-sketch of Greek philo
sophy, based, however, on very unreliable sources. From the con
clusion of the first book it seems certain that the second book dealt
with «the mysteries and all the curious fancies of individuals about
the stars or spaces*. The contents of the third book must have
been similar, for at the beginning of the fourth (in the beginning
mutilated) he is still combating astrology and magic. This fourth
book is doubtless identical with his work « Against the Magi»
fxara judfcwj that he refers to elsewhere (vi. 39). The second part
of the work opens with the fifth book, the description of the he
resies, and the proof of their heathen origin. Besides the accounts
of such earlier heresiologists as Irenaeus he made use of a number
of works that he took for genuine writings of the heretics , but
which, in the hypothesis of some modern writers like Salmon and
Stahelin, were only clever forgeries. The tenth and last book con
tains a summary recapitulation of the whole work. The work was
probably composed towards the end of his life. He seems to refer
(x. 30) to the Chronicle of Hippolytus. In any case the pontificate
of Callixtus is described (ix. n — 13) as a thing of the past. -- A
smaller work against all heresies 1, published long before the com
position of the Philosophumena (see the preface of the latter), is
usually known since Photius2 as the « Syntagma ». The latter writer
tells us that it contained the refutation of thirty-two heresies, G>JV-
Taf/jta xara aiplffsatv Aft', beginning with the Dositheans and ending
with the Noetians. It is now lost, but its contents have been incor
porated with the writings of such later heresiologists as Pseudo-
Tertullian (Libellus adversus o nines haereses), Epiphanius (Haereses),
and Philastrius (Liber de haeresibus). The fragment of a work
against the Patripassian Noetus, known in the manuscripts as 'Opdia
£t£ nyy atpeGw NOYJ~O>J ~wb& is no homily, but the ending of a com
prehensive anti-heretical work, either the Syntagma or a work other
wise unknown to us. Of a work against Marcion , known to Eu-

1 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 22; Hier., De viris ill., c. 61.

2 Bibl. Cod. 121.

214

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

sebius ! and St. Jerome 2, only the title has been preserved ; perhaps
it is identical with a work mentioned in the statue-catalogue as
7t£p} ttlfaftoi) xdc xoftev TO xaxov. Another lost work, the famous
Anonymus adversus Artemon, an Ebionite Monarchian, used by
Eusebius3 and Theodoret of Cyrus4 was very probably written by
Hippolytus5. His work in defence of the Gospel and the Apo
calypse of St. John, mentioned in' the statue-catalogue, (r)a orczp TOU
xara 'hodvyv efuaJ^e^oD xat dxoxaktyscoQ, has perished; not even
a fragment of it has reached us. It was probably written against
the so-called Alogi who wished to banish from the Church all the
writings of St. John. Some very interesting fragments of a Syriac
version of another work of Hippolytus on the Apocalypse, known to
Ebedjesu (f 1318) as Capita adversus Caium (in Greek probably
xeydAaia xard Fato>j), were published by J. Gwynn (1888 — 1890).
The Anti-Montanist Caius had pronounced the Apocalypse to be a
work of Cerinthus. It taught, he said, a millenarian kingdom of carnal
joys, and was therefore contradictory of the recognized canonical
and apostolical writings. Principally Anti - Montanistic also, in all
probability, was the work entitled on the statue xspl yapKrudrcov
dxoorohxrj xapddoaiQ, unless we aught to read two titles : mp} %aptff-
fj-drcov and d~oaToXt.xr] xapdooaic,. There is good reason to believe
that the same work is the basis of that section of the Apostolic Con
stitutions wrhich treats of the «charismata» (viii. I — 2).

Editions of the Philosophumena were published by E. Miller, Oxford,
1851; L. Duncker and F. G. Schneidewin, Gottingen, 1859; P. Cruice,
Paris, 1860. The Duncker and Schneidewin edition is reprinted in Migne,
PG., xvi. 3, among the works of Origen. The first book of the Philosophu
mena is accessible in a new recension in H. Diets, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin,
1879, PP- 551— 576; cf. pp. 144—156. For the literature of the subject
cf- § 54> i' G. Salmon, The Cross-References in the « Philosophumena », in
Hermathena (1885), v- 389—402; J. Drdscke, Zur «refutatio omnium hae-
resium» des ^Hippolytus , in Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftl. Theol. (1902), xlv.
263 — 289. The latter, following a hypothesis of Bunsen, attributes to Hippo
lytus chapters n and 12 of the Epistle to Diognetus (§ 22); they were
taken, he thinks, from the Philosophumena. Without specifying the work
whence they were taken, it has been shown by grave intrinsic arguments
mat they are really from the hand of Hippolytus ; cf. G. N. Bonwetsch,
Der Autor der Schluftkapitel des Briefes an Diognet (Nachrichten der
Akad. derWissensch., phUol.-hist.Kl., Gottingen, 1902, fasc. II). H. Stdhelin,
Die gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts in seiner Hauptschrift gegen die Hare
tiker (Texte und Untersuchungen, vi. 3), Leipzig, 1890, pp. i — 108. Con
cerning the Syntagma and the fragment of Contra Noetum see R. A. Lip-
sius , Die Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte neu untersucht, Leipzig,
1875, PP- 91—190. The fragments of the Capita adversus Caium were
published m Syriac and in English by J. Gwynn, Hippolytus and his
Heads against Caius», in Hermathena (1888), vi. 397—418; Hippolytus

1 EMS., Hist, eccl., vi. 22. 2 Hie).^ De yiris ^ c 6j

:; Eus., Hist, eccl., v. 28. * Haeret. fabul. comp. ii c

5 Phot., Bibl. Cod. 48.

§ 54- HIPPOLYTUS. 215

on St. Matth. xxiv. 15 — 22, in Hermathena (1890), vii. 137 — 150. There
is a German version of these fragments in the Berlin edition of Hippo-
lytus, i. 2, 241 — 247, where the two fragments on Mt. xxiv. 15 ff. , that
Gwynn attributed to the commentary of Hippolytus on Matthew, are rightly
adjudged to the Capita adversus Caium. For the other five fragments on
passages of the Apocalypse see T/i. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons,
ii. 2, 973 — 991: «Hippolytus gegen Caius» (an excellent dissertation).

4. APOLOGETIC AND DOCTRINAL WRITINGS. - - Towards the end
of the Philosophumena (x. 32) the author refers to an earlier work
TTspl rye, TOO TMVTOC, ooGtaQ, doubtless the one entitled on the statue-
catalogue Tipbc, 9EXXiqva£ xai xpbc, IlAdTcova TJ xal Tispl TOO XUVTOQ.
A fragment of it survives under the title 'IcoayTioo Ix TOO (xpbc, C'EA-
hjvaq) Xofoo TOO exifsfpa/j./jfivoo XO.TO. IJAaTcovoQ (IlXdTcoyo.) r.zpt TTJQ
TOO KCWTog acTtaQ. It treats of Hades, the joys of the just and the
sufferings of the wicked ; in its traditional form it contains hetero
geneous and spurious elements. Photius was acquainted 1 with a
work in two books known as 'loMrqnou its pi TOO XOLVTUQ, written
against Plato and the theories of the Platonist Alcinous'on the soul,
matter and the resurrection. It undertook also to prove that the
Jewish people was more ancient than the Hellenes. The fragment
entitled dirodsixTixy xpbg 'looda'woQ deals with the misfortunes of the
Jews and traces them to their crime against the Messias. It is of
doubtful authenticity; none of the ancients mentions any large work
of Hippolytus against the Jews. - The work De Antichristo* is
unique among the writings of Hippolytus, being the only one of which
the complete text has come down to us. It purposes to describe
fully, according to the Scriptures, the person and the works of Anti
christ. It is dedicated to a certain Theophilus , a friend of the
author, and was written about 202. The statue-catalogue mentions a
work K£p\ #(eo)o xal aapxbc. dvaardffe&z', and St. Jerome3 was ac
quainted with a work of Hippolytus De resurrectione. Some frag
ments of a treatise of Hippolytus «To the Empress Julia Mammsea
on the resurrection » are preserved in Syriac; she was the mother of
the Emperor Alexander Severus (222 — 235). Perhaps two fragments
of Hippolytus sx TYJQ rcpb^ ftaadida TWO. ima'o'kr^ preserved in Theo-
doret of Cyrus, and a fragment in Anastasius Sinaita sx TOO r.£p\
xal dp&apffiaQ Aofoo , belong to this work. The ~po-
Tipbc, 2efir]p£tvo.y, mentioned in the statue-catalogue, is other
wise unknown, and apparently it has utterly perished. The same
fate has befallen the work De dispensatione (nepl olxovojuiac, the Incar
nation) mentioned by the Syrian Ebedjesu.

For the fragment of «the Origin of the Universe* cf. Harnack, Gesch.
der altchristl. Lit., i. 622 f. ; J. Drdseke , Zu Hippolytus' «Demonstratio
adversus Iudaeos», in Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. (1886), xii. 456 — 461. The

1 Ib. 2 Hie,:, De viris ill., c. 6 1. 3 Ib.

2l6 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

work «On Antichrist*, was edited by Achelis in the Berlin edition of
Hippolytus, i. 2, 3 — 47, with the aid (for the first time) of a Jerusalem
codex of the tenth century and of a Slavonic version translated (1895) into
German by Bonwetsch. For earlier editions and the manuscript-tradition
cf. Achelis, Hippolytstudien , pp. 65—93. The edition of Achelis is dis
cussed by P. Wendland , in Hermes (1899), xxxiv. 412—427. V. Grone
made a German version of the De Antichristo, Kempten, 1873 (Bibl. der
Kirchenvater). Some profound researches on the same book are due to
Fr. C. Overbeck , Quaestionum Hippolytearum specimen (Dissert, inaug.),
Jena, 1864. The fragments of the work «On the Resurrection » are in the
Berlin edition, i. 2, 251 — 254.

5. EXEGETICAL AND HOMILETIC WRITINGS. - - Eusebius was ac
quainted1 with writings of Hippolytus SCQ rlrp k^ar^spov and SJQ TO. JUBTO.
rrjv sgayfjispoy (probably on Gen. ii — iii). St. Jerome describes them2
as in k^arjfispov , in Exodum, in Genesim , and elsewhere3 refers to
scholia of Hippolytus on the Ark of Noah and on Melchisedech. He
describes minutely4 the exposition of Hippolytus on the Blessing of
Jacob (Gen. xxvii). The principal remnants of his Genesis Commen
taries are copious scholia on the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix), pre
served in the Octateuch-Catena of the sophist Procopius of Gaza.
There are no fragments extant of Hippolytus on Exodus and Levi
ticus. Leontius of Byzantium quotes a few lines from Hippolytus
on Numb, xxiii or xxiv, under the title Ix rwv edXo?uov TOO Ba-
Aadfj.. and Theodoret of Cyrus has saved three small fragments ecQ
rrtv MOT^ rr/v psfatyy , i. e. on the so-called Canticle of Moses
(Deut. xxxii). A late Pentateuch-Catena in Arabic contains both
genuine and spurious scholia to Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
In 1897 Achelis discovered a Greek fragment «From the exposition
of the Book of Ruth». Theodoret of Cyrus quotes four short pas
sages £* ro\) XofO'j TO~J sis ?bv 'Ehavav xa\ slq TTJV "Away. The statue-
catalogue mentions a work on the Witch ofEndor, (slq l^/^rr/^j^ov,
that is called by St. Jerome 5 De Said et Pythonissa. It seems to be
lost. The fragment of the nocturnal scene at Endor published by
De Magistris in 1795 under the name of Hippolytus is apparently
spurious. The work on the Psalms (slq TOLJQ $)aXjjLo6<; or (slg <p)alfj.ooc,
mentioned in the statue -catalogue, and called De p salmis by Je
rome 6 was only an opiisculum in paucos Psalmos, as Jerome expressly
states elsewhere7. Theodoret quotes three fragments of Psalm-com
mentaries: Ps. ii. 7; Ps. xxii. i (Septuagint, with a remarkable passage
on the sinlessness of Mary) and Ps. xxiii. 7 (Septuagint). Achelis
proved in 1897 that all other fragments of Hippolytus-commen-
taries on the Psalms in Greek and Syriac , as found in the printed
editions, are, with the exception of a few insignificant ones, spurious.
In the same year Bonwetsch was able to add some Slavonic, Ar-

Hist. eccl., vi. 22. 2 De viris m^ c> 6l 3 Ep 4g) I9; ^ 2>

Ep. 36, 16. - De yiris ni c> 6l c Ib 7 i

§ 54- HIPPOLYTUS. 217

menian and Syriac fragments to the remnants of the commentary on
the Canticle of canticles, SIQ TO affjua, mentioned by Eusebius1 and
Jerome 2. Of the commentary on Proverbs 3 only Catenae-fragments
have come down to us; the commentary on Ecclesiastes * has appa
rently perished. Theodoret quotes a passage of Hippolytus on Is. ix, I
as ex TO~J Aoyo'j TOO sic, TTJV &P%yv T0^ *H0aloo. There is no evidence
to show that Hippolytus wrote a commentary on Jeremias. He did
write on Ezechiel, according to Eusebius5, slg pipr] TOO 'IzZexiyA;
at least one Syriac fragment on Ez. i, 5 — IO (the Symbols of
the Evangelists) must be looked on as genuine. - - The best-known
and the longest of the exegetical works of Hippolytus is his com
mentary on the book of Daniel. In 1897 Bonwetsch was able to
publish the greater part of it in Greek, and the whole, or nearly
the whole of it, in Sclavonic or Old-Sclavonic, together with a German
translation. Besides the proto-canonical book of Daniel the com
mentary treats the story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three
Children in the fiery furnace ; in the text of Bonwetsch the narrative
of Bel and the Dragon is lacking. The work is divided into four
books, was written about 204, after the treatise on Antichrist (iv.
7, i), and is the oldest of the extant exegetical writings of the
Christian Church. His commentary on Zacharias was known to St. Je
rome6. The latter was also acquainted with an Hippolytus-com-
mentary on Matthew 7 ; in certain Oriental Catenae (Coptic , Arabic
and Ethiopic) there are Hippolytus-scholia to Mt. xxiv. The frag
ment in Theodoret ix TOO Xofoo TOO elq TTJV TWV raMvTcuv diavofji'qv
must have been taken from a homily on the parable of the talents
(Mt. xxv. 14 ff); similarly the three fragments in Theodoret on the
two thieves (S!Q TOUQ 060 tyjardq: Lk. xxiii. 39 ff). An Armenian trans
lation of the homily in quatriduanum Lazaruni II is found among the
spurious works of St. John Chrysostom 8. The two recensions of this
Armenian text, bearing the name of Hippolytus, are taken from «the
commentary on the Gospel of John and the resurrection ofLazarus».
From later ecclesiastical writers we learn something about the nature
of his commentary on the Apocalypse (de apocalypsi)^ particularly
from a thirteenth-century Arabic commentary of an unknown author
on that book. - - Hippolytus was the first Christian writer to com
pose lengthy commentaries on books of the Old Testament. He
does not follow closely the sequence of the biblical narrative, nor
dissect the text minutely, it is rather the principal ideas that he
selects and discusses in a large and free manner. It is well to recall
the fact that his contemporary Origen is likewise a commentator of
the Scriptures. But while Origen is intellectually the superior of

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 22. *- De viris ill., c. 61. 3 Ib. 4 Ib.

5 Hist, eccl., vi. 22. '5 De viris ill., c. 61 ; Comm. in Zach., praef.

1 Comm. in Matth., praef. s Migne, PG., Ixii. 775 — 778. 9 Hier., De viris ill., c. 61 •

2l8 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

Hippolytus, and a more profound thinker, the latter possesses a fund
of exegetic principles more clear and solid than those of Origen.
Hippolytus is more sober in his exposition and his principles more
like those of the later Antiochene school. He loves, indeed, to
allegorize and makes much use of typology. But there is in him
a certain moderation; he gives evidence of tact and taste, and of a
mind open to the historical view of scriptural things. Many fragments
published as remnants of his commentaries have really drifted down
from his homilies. A sermon, De laude Domini Salvatoris, that he
preached in the presence of Origen *, has perished. From the ex
tant fragments we should judge that the work on Easter (r^p} TOO
xdaya) mentioned by Eusebius2 and by St. Jerome3 was a paschal
sermon. The sermon «on the Epiphany » , slg ra afta ftsoyavsta,
extant complete, both in Greek and Syriac, is full of movement and
strength, but is most probably a spurious discourse on baptism.

The best collection of the exegetic and homiletic works and fragments
of Hippolytus is found in the first volume of the Berlin edition. We owe
to Bonwetsch the edition of the commentary on Daniel and the frag
ments of the commentary on the Canticle of canticles ; and to Achelis the
« minor exegetical and homiletic texts ». The Slavonic, Armenian, Syriac and
other texts are given in German translation. See Bonwetsch, Studien zu
den Kommentaren Hippolyts zum Buche Daniel und Hohen Liede, in Texte
u. Untersuchungen , Leipzig, 1897, xvi. 2; Achelis, Hippolytstudien (ib.,
Leipzig, 1897, xvi. 4). All the fragments of Daniel known previously
to 1877 were published and commented by O. Bardenhewer , Des
hi. Hippolytus von Rorn Kommentar zum Buche Daniel, Freiburg, 1877.
In 1885—1886, B. Georgiades published in several fascicules of the
'ExxXY)<jta<mxf) 'AX^sia (Constantinople) the Greek text of the fourth and
last book of the commentary on Daniel vii— xii. Cf. Bonwetsch, Die
handschriftliche Uberlieferung des Danielkommentars Hippolyts, in Nach-
richten von der k. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, Philol.-hist.
Klasse (1896), pp. 16 — 42. For a spurious passage of this commentary
(iv. 23, 3) on the date of the Savior's birth (Dec. 25.) see Bonwetsch,
ib. (1895), pp. 515—527, and the literature referred to there on p. 515.
The Greek text of the Slavonic fragment on Apoc. xx. 1—3 (Berlin ed.,
i. 2, 237 f.) was edited by Fr. Diekamp , in Theol. Quartalschr. (1897),
Ixxix. 604—616, and shown to be spurious. G, N. Bonwetsch, Hippolyts
K^ommentar zum Hohenlied auf Grund von N. Marrs Ausgabe des grusini-
schen Textes herausgegeben, in Texte und Untersuch., new series, Leipzig,
1902, vin. 2. There are in the Codex used by Marr other quite unknown,
and as yet unedited, Hippolytean texts. E. Violard, Etude sur le commen-
taire d'Hippolyte sur le livre de Daniel (These), Montbeliard, 1903. Batiffol
holds that Nestorms is the author of the Sermon «On the Epiphany »,
Revue Biblique (1900), ix. 341—344; G. Chalatiantz, Uber die armenische
V ersion der Weltchronik des Hippolytus, in Wiener Zeitschr. fur d. Kunde
. Morgenl. (1903), pp. 182—186; G. N. Bonwetsch, Drei Georgisch er-
haltene Schnften von Hippolytus: Der Segen Jakobs, Der Segen Moses',
Erzahlung von David und Goliath (Texte und Untersuchungen, xi. i),
Leipzig, 1904; O. Bardenhewer, Neue exegetische Schriften des hi. Hippo
lytus, in Biblische Zeitschrift (1905), pp. 1—17.

1 flier., De viris ill, c. 61. * Hist, eccl, vi. 22. » De viris m>> c. 6l

§ 54- HIPPOLYTUS. 219

6. CHRONOLOGICAL WRITINGS. CANON LAW. ODES. - - Accord
ing to Eusebius 1 and St. Jerome 2 a work of Hippolytus , entitled
on the statue-catalogue dTiodet&g ypovcov TOO ndaya contained chrono
logical disquisitions and a paschal cycle of sixteen years beginning
with the year 222. The most important relic of this work is visible
in the paschal tables for the years 222 — 233 engraved on either
side of the chair in which the figure of Hippolytus is seated. His
«Chronicle», called %povtxwv (sc. /9«/?>l0£?), on the statue-catalogue
and very probably identical with the work mentioned in Philosophu-
mena (x. 30), is a compendium of chronology from the creation of
the world to 234. Lengthy fragments of it have survived in Greek;
it has also reached us in Latin , through three distinct recensions
of the so-called Liber generationis (mundi). - - From a remark of
St. Jerome 3 we may conclude that Hippolytus wrote also on ec
clesiastical law and customs. There is no evidence, however, for
ascribing to him the authorship of such late collections of apostolic
ordinances as the Constitute ones per Hippolytum . the Egyptian
Church-Ordinance and the Canones Hippolyti (§ 75, 6 f). — Accord
ing to the statue-catalogue he also wrote Odes, wdai, but nothing-
more is known of them.

The fragments of the work on Easter and the Chronicle are indicated
by Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i. 625 ff. The different recensions
of the Liber generationis were edited by Th. Mommscn , in Chronica
minora saec. iv v vi vii, vol. i (Monum. Germ. hist. Auct. antiquiss., ix.),
Berlin, 1892, pp. 78 ff. ; by C. Frick , Chronica minora, vol. i, Leipzig,
1892, pp. iff.; cf. v. ff. Frick maintains that in the Liber generationis
the Chronicle of Hippolytus is used only as a source, not translated or
revised ; but his thesis seems untenable. On the Chronicle see H. Gelzer,
Sextus Julius Africanus, Leipzig, 1885, ii. i, i — 23; H. Achelis , Uber
Hippolyts Oden imd seine Schrift «Zur groften Ode» (§ 54, 5), in Nach-
richten von der k. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen. Philol.-histor.
Klasse, 1896, pp. 272—276.

7. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. - - Among the writings falsely ascribed
to Hippolytus two may be mentioned : the Trsp} TYJQ aovreteiaQ TOO
xoff/wj, compiled from his work on Antichrist (§ 54, 4) and from
writings of St. Ephraem Syrus, but not earlier than the ninth century,
also a work xara BypatvoQ y.ai e'HhxoQ TCOV alpSTtxwv xepi fteoAoytag
xat Gapxwazcoc,, written perhaps in the sixth century and surviving
only in meagre fragments.

The work De consummatione mundi is found in the Berlin edition, i. 2,
289 — 309. In his Gesammelte Patristische Untersuchungen, Altona, 1889,
pp. 56 ff. y. Drdseke has undertaken to vindicate for the Pseudo-Dionysius
the Areopagite the authorship of the work against Beron and Helix, but
his attempt is unsuccessful.

1 Hist, eccl., vi. 22. 2 De viris ill., c. 61.

3 Ep. 71, 6.

22O FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

8. THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. - - The Muratorian Fragment, so-called
from its discoverer, L. A. Muratori (j i75°)> and extant in an eighth cen
tury codex, is a catalogue of the writings of the New Testament, mutilated
at the beginning and perhaps at the end. Intrinsic evidence goes to show
that it was composed in the West (Rome?) about the year 200. The very
incorrect and difficult Latin text is perhaps a version from the original
Greek. Lightfoot attempted, but without success, to claim its authorship
for Hippolytus. Th. Zahn } Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1890), ii.
If 1 — 143, and G. Kuhn, Das Muratorische Fragment, Zurich, 1892, contain
the most recent and exhaustive commentaries on this document. For more
precise details see the manuals of Introduction to the New Testament, and
in particular Westcott, On the Canon, Appendix C., 7. ed., 1896, pp. 530
to 547. -- A new edition, with a proposed restoration of the Latin text,
was brought out by H. Lietzmann, Kleine Texte fur theolog. Vorlesungen
und Ubungen, Bonn, 1902; A. Harnack, Miscellen, in Texte und Unter-
suchungen, new series, v. 3, Leipzig, 1900, pp. 107 — 112.

§ 55. Novatian.

I . HIS LIFE. - - The schism of Hippolytus was perhaps forgotten
when Novatian1 began another that was destined to an almost uni
versal extension and a life of centuries, especially in the East. In 250
Novatian was a very distinguished member of the Roman clergy;
two of the letters addressed by that body to Cyprian of Carthage2
after the death of Pope Fabian (Jan. 20., 250) were written by No
vatian (§ 51? 5)- Both letters represent the praxis of the Roman
Church relative to the lapsi; the writer and those who commissioned
him to write are in full harmony with the opinions of Cyprian. No
vatian abandoned the Roman traditions and betrayed his own prin
ciples when in 251 he took up at Rome the leadership of a rigorist
party in opposition to Pope Cornelius (from March 251), and de
manded with them the perpetual exclusion of all apostates from
ecclesiastical communion3. Concerning his later life and his end
nothing certain is known. There are grave reasons for doubting the
statement, first met with Socrates4 that Novatian died a martyr's
death in the persecution of Valerian (257 — 260).

On the schism of Novatian see v. Hefele, in Kirchenlexikon , 2. ed.,
ix. 542 — 550; Harnack, in Realencyklopadie fiir protest. Theol. und Kirche,
2. ed., x. 652 — 670. For the Cyprianic epistles 30 and 36 see Harnack, in
Theol. Abhandlungen , C. v. Weizsdcker gewidmet, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 14
to 20. Forged acts of Novatian's martyrdom were current in the sixth
century; see Eulogius of Alexandria in Phot., Bibl. Cod. 182 208 280.

Ammundsen, Novatianus og Novatianismen etc. , Kopenhagen, 1901;
F. Torm, En Kritisk Fremstilling of Novatianus' Liv og Forfatter-
virksomhed etc., Kopenhagen, 1901; 7. O. Anderson, Novatian, Kopen
hagen, 1901.

1 The Latin sources usually speak of him as Novatianus; the Greeks write mostly

y«ro?, Naudros, Naftdrog.

- Ep. 30 and 36, ed. Hartel. 3 Socrates, Hist, eccl., iv. 28. 4 Ib.

§ 55- NOVATIAN. 221

2. HIS LITERARY LABORS. The two letters to Cyprian
(§ 55> 0 are quite sufficient to prove the superior ability of Novatian
as a rhetorician and a philosopher. It is admitted also by his earliest
adversaries, Pope Cornelius l and Cyprian 2. Jerome is the first to
inform us about his writings : Scripsit autem de pascha, de sabbato,
de circumcisione , de sacerdote, de oratione, de cibis iudaicis, de in-
stantia, de Attalo multaque alia et de trinitate grande volumen, quasi
eTCLTOfr/jV operis Tertulliani faciens, quod plerique nescientes Cypriani
existimant3. The Epistolae Novatiani that Jerome mentions else
where4 are perhaps the letters sent by him in 251 to many bishops
in order to gain them over to his cause5. Only two of the works
mentioned by St. Jerome have reached us, De Trinitate and De
cibis iudaicis, though the manuscripts attribute them to Tertullian
instead of Novatian. A number of works formerly current under
the name of Cyprian have recently been claimed for Novatian. Among
them the De spectaculis and De bono pudicitiae (§ 51, 6 d — e) are
rightly adjudged to him; not so, however, Quod idola dii non sint
(§51, 4) and the sermons De laude martyrii and Adversus ludaeos
(§ 51, 6 a — b). Weyman holds that he is the author of the Trac-
tatus Origenis de libris SS. Scripturarum, disovered in 1900.

The De Trinitate and De cibis Iudaicis were first printed in the edition
of Tertullian at Paris in 1545 by M. Mesnartius (J. Gangneius). They
were also printed , apart from the works of Tertullian, by E. Welchman,
Oxford, 1724, and J. Jackson, London, 1728. The latter edition is re
produced in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., Venice, 1767, iii. 285 — 323 (cf. xvi
to xix), and in Migne, PL., iii. 86 1 — 970.

3. DE TRINITATE. DE CIBIS JUDAICIS. - - In contents and form
the De Trinitate is a work of superior merit. In close adherence to
St. Irenaeus of Lyons the author treats of God the Omnipotent Father
(cc. i — 8), at greater length of the Son, of His divinity, His humanity,
and His personal distinction from the Father (cc. 9 — 28), and very briefly
concerning the Holy Ghost (c. 29). Though it was soon afterwards
held to be a work either of Tertullian or of Cyprian G, it certainly came
from the hand of Novatian 7, nor is it an extract from the Adversus
Praxcain of Tertullian 8. It was probably composed before the out
break of his schism and even before the persecution of Decius. The
De Cibis Iudaicis is a work addressed to the Novatian community
in Rome, for the purpose of showing how certain foods were de
clared unclean by the Mosaic law in order to withdraw the Jews
from the sins and vices symbolized by those animals. The Christian,
however, apart from the precept of temperance, is bound only to

1 Ens., Hist, eccl., vi. 43. 2 Ep. 55, 16 24.

8 Hier., De viris ill., c. 70; cf. Ep. 36, I. 4 Ep. 10, 3.

5 Socr., Hist, eccl., iv. 28. 6 Rufin., De adult, libr. Orig.

7 Hier., Contra Ruf., ii. 19. 8 Hier., De viris ill., c. 70.

222 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

avoid the use of meats sacrificed to idols. Occasional reminiscences
of Seneca are worthy of note. We learn from the writer (c. i) who,
probably because of some persecution by Gallus and Volusianus or
by Valerianus, dwelt far from (Rome), that in two former letters
he had expressed his opinions on the true circumcision and the true
sabbath *.

For the DC Trinitate see H. Hagemann, Die Romische Kirche und ihr
Einflufi auf Disziplin und Dogma, Freiburg, 1864, pp. 371 — 411 (according
to Hagemann the work is not from the pen of Novatian) ; J. Quarry, in
Hermathena (1897), no. 23, pp. 36 — 70, thinks that it is a version from
the Greek and that the original was written by Hippolytus; G. Landgraf
and C. Weyman , in Archiv f. latein. Lexikogr. u. Gramm. (1898 — 1900),
xi. 221 — 249, have given us an excellent edition of De cibis ludaids.
Th, M. Wehofer, Sprachliche Eigentiimlichkeiten des klassischen Juristen-
lateins in Novatians Briefen, in Wiener Studien (1901), xxiii. 269 — 275.

4. TRACTATUS DE LIBRIS SS. SCRIPTURARUM. -- Under the name
of Origen twenty homilies have reached us in an Orleans manuscript
of the tenth and in another of St. Omer belonging to the twelfth
century. Their subject-matter, with the exception of the last (on
the miracle of Pentecost, Acts ii), is taken from the Old-Testament.
Batiffol, who discovered and edited them, accepted the evidence of
the manuscripts; according to him the homilies were really com
posed or delivered by Origen , and Victorinus of Pettau (§ 58, i),
translated them into Latin, and perhaps revised them. When con
fronted with the vigorous refutation in the seventeenth homily of
Origen's peculiar denial of the resurrection of the body, Batiffol re
plied that the translator had simply interpolated the text of the
original, using for that purpose the De resurrectione carnis of Ter-
tullian. Weyman has shown that the Latin text is original and not
a version. A close similarity of style and diction suggests Novatian;
on the other hand the Trinitarian doctrine of these homilies (ed.
Batiffol, 33 67 157) seems to indicate a post-Nicene composition.
Dom Morin suggests as author the Luciferian Gregory of Eliberis
(§ 87, 4)-

Tractatus Origenis de libris SS. Scripturarum detexit et cdidit P. Batiffol
sociatis curis A. Wilmart , Paris, 1900; C. Weyman, in Archiv fur latein.
Lexikogr. u. Gramm. (1898—1900), xi. 467?. 545—576; G. Morin, in
Revue d'histoire et de litterature relig. (1900), v. 145—161; Batiffol, in
Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique (1900), pp. 190—197 (against Morin) ;
283—297 (against Weyman); Funk, in Theol. Quartalschr. (1900), Ixxxii.
534—544; E- C.Butler, The New Tractatus Origenis, in Journal of Theol.
Studies (1901), ii. 113 — 121 254 — 262 (non liquet, written by an anonymous
hand in the fifth or the sixth century); J. Haussleiter , Novatians Predigt
iiber die Kundschafter (n. 13) in direkter Uberlieferung und in einer Be-
arbeitung des Casanus von Aries, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift (1902), xiii.
1 19— 143; P- Batiffol, in Civilta Cattolica, series XVIII (1902), v. 589, is

Cf. the titles De sabbato and De circumcisione, in Hicr., De viris ill., c. 70.

§ 56. PAPAL LETTERS. 22$

now of opinion that it was written by a follower of Novatian towards the
end of the persecutions (ca. 300 — 313). In the Revue Benedictine (1902),
xix, 226 — 245, G. Morin gives up Gregory of Eliberis, but only to look
for a still later author, somewhere in the fifth century. H. Jordan, Die
Theologie der neuentdeckten Predigten Novatians, Greifswald, 1902;
P. Batiffol, in Revue Biblique (1903), xii. 81 — 93; H. Jordan, Melito und
Novitian, in Archiv fur latein. Lexikogr. und Grammatik (1902), xii. 59
to 68; y. Baer , De operibus Fastidii etc. (cf. § 94, 16); E. C. Butler,
An Hippolytus-Fragment and a Word on the Tractatus Origenis, in Zeit-
schrift fur die neutestamentl. Wissensch. (1903), iv. 79 — 87. The so-called
Tractatus Origenis, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1905), vi. 587 — 599.

§ 56. Papal Letters.

1. ST. CALLIXTUS (21 7 — 222). — Out of the references in the De
pudicitia of Tertullian (§ 50, 5) Rolffs undertook, with doubtful
success, to restore the text of the penitential or indulgence edict in
which Pope Callixtus promised forgiveness and reconciliation to
adulterers and fornicators, conditionally on the performance of public
penance. It is uncertain whether and to what extent the other
decrees of this pope in matters of discipline and dogma (§ 54> 0
were reduced to writing.

E. Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuchungen (1893), xi. 3; P. Batiffol, Le
decret de Calliste, in Etudes d'hist. et de theol. positive, Paris, 1902,
pp. 69 — no.

2. ST. PONTIANUS (230—235). -- A Roman synod of 231 or 232 con
firmed the decrees of the two Alexandrine synods condemnatory of Origen
(Hier.j Ep. 33, 4). It is probable that Pope Pontianus communicated the
action of the Roman synod in a letter to Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria.

3. ST. FABIANUS (236 — 250). - - This pope wrote a letter (litteris)
in approval of the action of a great Numidian synod concerning
Privatus, bishop of Lambesa in Numidia1.

For letters of the Roman clergy during the vacancy of the see from
Jan. 250 to March 251 cf. § 51, 5c; § 55, i.

4. ST. CORNELIUS (251 — 253). -- Amidst the letters of St. Cy
prian 2 are two from Cornelius addressed to the former concerning the
schism of Novatian. At least five letters of Cornelius to Cyprian are
lost3. Three letters to Fabius, bishop of Antioch4, and one to
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria5, dealt with the same schism, but
were certainly written in Greek. Eusebius6 has saved for us some
excerpts from the third letter to Fabius.

P. Constant, Epist. Rom. Pont., Paris, 1721, i. 125 — 206; Ronth,
Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed. , iii. n — 89. For genuine and spurious material

1 Cypr,, Ep. 59, 10. 2 Ep. 49 50.

3 Cypr., Ep. 45, i; 48, i; 50; 59, i — 2.

4 £us., Hist. eccl. , vi. 43, 3 — 4; incorrectly given as four letters, in Hier., De
viris ill., c. 66.

5 Ens., 1. c., vi. 46, 3. 6 Ib , vi. 43, 5—22.

224 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

cf. Migne, PL., iii. 675 — 848; G. Mercati, D'alcuni miovi sussidii per la
critica del testo di S. Cipriano, Rome, 1899, pp. 72 — 86: «Le lettere di
S. Cornelio Papa» and (pp. 84 — 86) a new edition of the same according
to important readings of the Verona Codex. It has been mentioned above
(§ 51, 6) that L. Nelke holds Cornelius to be the author of Ad Novatianum.

5. ST. LUCIUS i. (253 — 254). -- St. Cyprian mentions (Ep. 68, 5) one
or more letters of St. Lucius concerning the treatment of those who had
apostatized in the persecutions.

6. ST. STEPHEN I. (254 — 257). — Stephen wrote to the churches
in Syria and Arabia1, also in consequence of the controversy on
heretical baptism to the bishop of Asia Minor2, and to Cyprian3.
It has been conjectured from passages in Cyprian4 and Firmilian of
Caesarea5 that he wrote other letters. We possess only his famous
decision on the baptism of heretics in the letter addressed to Cyprian 6
(cf. § Si, i).

Constant, 1. c. , i. 209 — 256; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., i.
656—658.

7. ST. SIXTHS ii. (257—258). — It is very probable that Sixtus also wrote
letters on the question of heretical baptism. Concerning the thesis of
Harnack that Sixtus is the author of the pseudo-Cyprianic Ad Novatianum
see § 51, 6 f. In the fourth century a collection of moral apophthegms,
translated into Latin by Rufinus of Aquileja, were believed by many to
be the work of Pope Sixtus. They are a later adoptation by some Chris
tian of a work of Sextus the Pythagorean (not so Hier., Ep. 33, 3). For
recent editions of Rufinus' version see J. Gildemeister , Sexti sententiarum
recensiones, Bonn, 1873; A. Elter, Gnomica, Leipzig, 1892, i. For the
other works attributed to Sixtus see Harnack, in Texte und Untersuchungen
(1895), xm- I> 64 f-

8. ST. DIONYSIUS (259—268). — On the subjects of Sabellianism
and Subordinationism (Arianism) pope Dionysius addressed two letters
to Dionysius of Alexandria 7 (cf. § 40, 3). St. Athanasius has pre
served8 a precious fragment of the first letter, or more properly
dogmatic Encyclical. The pope also wrote a letter of consolation to
the church of Caesarea in Cappadocia9.

Constant, 1. c., i. 269—292; Routh, 1. c., iii. 369-403. Genuine, and
spurious material in Migne, PL., v. 99—136. For the doctrinal letters to
Dionysius of Alexandria see H. Hagemann , Die Romische Kirche Frei
burg, 1864, pp. 432—453-

9. ST. FELIX i. (269—274). — The letter of St. Felix to Maximus, bishop
Alexandria, and his clergy, a passage of which was read at the council

of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, SS. Concil. Coll., iv. 1188) was very probably
the work of an Apollinarist forger.

1 Dion. Alex., in Eus., Hist, eccl., vii. 5, 2.

' Ib., vii. 5, 4; Cypr., Ep. 75, 25. s Cypr., Ep. 74 75.

Ep. 67, 5; 68. * Ib-; 75; 25 e ^ ^ ^

r Athan., Ep. de sent. Dionys., c. 13.

8 Ep. de deer. Nyc. syn., c. 26. 9 Basil. Magn., Ep. 70.

§ 57- COMMODIAN. 225

Constant, 1. c., i. 291 — 298, defends this fragment as genuine; it is
pronounced spurious by Caspari , Alte und neue Quellen zur Gesch. des
Taufsymbols, Christiania, 1879, PP- IIT — 123- See Harnack, Gesch. der
altchristl. Lit., i. 659 f.

10. ST. MILTIADES (311 — 314). — Either Miltiades, or the Roman
synod of Oct. 313, wrote a letter to Constantine concerning the
Donatist schism; it is referred to in a letter of the Emperor1.

C. OTHER WESTERN WRITERS.

§ 57. Commodian.

1. His LIFE. - - Only his own works make this writer known to
us ; even the account of him in Gennadius 2 is taken from his writings.
He was brought up as a heathen, but embraced the Christian faith
after reading the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament; he had
probably been a Jewish proselyte at an earlier date. The eighth-cen
tury codex of his Carmen apologeticum calls him sanctus episcopus.
His language shows that he had lived in the Latin West, though he
was probably born at Gaza in Palestine3. His extant works, it is
conjectured, were written about 250 or a little later.

G. Boissier , Commodien, Paris, 1886; Freppel, Commodien, Arnobe,
Lactance, Paris, 1893, pp. i — 27. His two works were edited by E. Ludwig,
Leipzig, 1877 — 1878, and B. Dombart (1887), Vienna, (Corpus script,
eccles. Lat. , xv). The preparatory labors of Dombart are found in the
following reviews: Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol. (1879), xxn- 374 — 3^9;
Blatter fiir das bayer. Gymn.- und Realschulwesen (1880), xvi. 341 — 351;
Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Kl. der k. Akad. der Wissenschaft zu Wien
(1880), xcvi. 447 — 473; (1884), cvii. 713 — 802. H. Brewer, in Zeitschr. fiir
kath. Theol. (1899), xxm- 759 — 763, defended a singular opinion con
cerning the date of the writings of Commodian («about 458 to 466)));
G. S. Ramundo , in Archivio della Soc. Romana di Storia Patria (1901),
xxiv. 373 — -391, and in Scritti vari di nlologia a Ernesto Monaci, Rome,
1902, pp. 215 — 229 (about the time of Julian the Apostate).

2. INSTRUCTIONES. - The Instructiones per litter as versuum
primas are a collection in two books of eighty acrostic poems, un
equal in length. The first book is written againsfc Jews and heathens,
scoffs at the heathen mythologies, reprehends the depraved manners
of the heathens and the stubbornness of the Jews, and closes with
a threatening reference to the Last Judgment4. The second book
is addressed to the Christians, with the intention of urging all, cate
chumens and faithful, lay and cleric, poor and rich, to the fulfilling
of their duties and the avoidance of sin. The text has come down
in a very corrupt condition, the diction is extremely popular, and

1 Rouih, Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed., iv. 297. 2 De viris ill., c. 15.

3 Gascus, Instr., ii. 39.

4 In spite of the manuscripts Acrostics 42 — 45 belong not to the second, but to
the first book.

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology. 15

226 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

the metre, a very peculiar hexameter, governed alternately by quan
tity and by accent. All the poems are acrostic (i. 28, is both
acrostic and telestic), i. e. the initial letters of the successive verses
form words expressive of the theme and the title of the poem. The
result of so fantastic a plan was necessarily a stiff and cramped
diction, almost wooden in its rigidity. His biblical quotations are
taken from St. Cyprian's Testimonia adversus Judaeos. He seems
also to have been acquainted with Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and
the « Shepherd » of Hermas.

Editio princeps, by N. Rigaltius, Toul, 1649 (Migne, PL., v). For the
editions of Ludwig and Dombart see § 57, i. Fr. Hanssen , De arte
metrica Commodiani, in Dissert, philol. Argentorat. sel. (1881), v. 1—90;
W. Merer, Der Versbau Commodians, in Denkschriften der k. bayer. Akad.
der Wissensch., Abhandlungen der philos.-philol. Kl. (1885), xvii. 2, 288
to 307.

3. CARMEN APOLOGETICUM. - - Quite similar in its scope to the
first book of Instructiones is the poem that its original editor entitled
Carmen apologeticum. It contains 1060 verses, several of which are
either fragmentary or illegible, and it is known to us through a
single eighth-century manuscript. A prolix introduction (vv. I — 88)
is followed by instructions on the nature of God, the beginnings of
redemption (89 — 276), the person of the Savior and the significance
of the names of Father and Son (277 — 578). Then come stern warn
ings to the heathens (579 — 616) and to the Jews (617 — 790). In
its closing lines the poem rises to its highest perfection in a formal
description of the Last Judgment (791 — 1060). The author is not
mentioned in the codex, but intrinsic evidence points to the author
of the Instructiones. The mention of the seventh persecution and of
the passage of the Danube by the Goths (vv. 808 ff.) suggests the
fifth decade of the third century. The metre is that of the Instruc
tiones, though the diction, freed from the bonds of the acrostic,
is more fluent and lively.

The editio princeps is that of J. B. Pitra , Spicil. Solesm. (1852), i. ;
cf. (1858), iv. 222 — 224. It was also edited by J. ff. Ronsch, in Zeitschr.
fur die hist. Theol. (1872), xlii. 163 — 302. For the editions of Ludwig and
Dombart see § 57, i. A. Ebert, Commodians Carmen apol., in Abhand
lungen der k. sachs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. phil.-hist. Kl. (1870), v. 387
to 420; C. Leimbach , Uber Commodians «Carmen apol. adv. Gentes et
Iudaeos» (Progr.), Schmalkalden , 1871; B. Aube, L'Eglise et 1'Etat dans
la seconde moitie du IIP siecle [249—284], Paris, 1885, pp. 517—544.

4. RETROSPECT. - - There is little to attract us in the first Christian
poet, from the standpoint of literary form. The verse clings prosaical
ly to the earth; only occasionally, especially in the eschatological
parts, does it manifest a certain afflatus and develop a degree of
majesty. The contents of his writings betrays a practical and sagacious
ecclesiastic, filled with benevolent zeal, but endowed with slight

§ 58. VICTORINUS . OF : PETTAU AND RETICIUS OF AUTUN. 22/

theological culture. A very gross form of Chiliasm is exhibited in both
works1. His doctrine on God, on the Trinity, or rather his theo-
dicea, scarcely outlined in the Instructiones, appears in the Carmen
apologeticum (vv. 89 ff. 277 ff. 771 ff;) as downright Monarchianism
or Patripassianism.

For the teaching of Commodian on the. Trinity see J. L. Jacobi, in
Zeitschr. fur christl. Wissensch. und christl.. Leben (1853), iv. 203 — 209.
His eschatology is discussed by L. Atzbcrger, Gesch. der christl. Eschato-
logie, Freiburg, 1896, pp. 555—566.

§ 58. Victorinus of Pettau and Reticius of Autun.

I . VICTORINUS OF PETTAU. - - Victorinus, the earliest exegete of
the Latin Church, was bishop of Petabio or Petavio (Pettau in Steier-
mark) in the closing years of the third century, and died a martyr
in : the persecution of Diocletian2. The statement of Cassiodorus3
that Victorinus was a rhetorician before he became a bishop, is the
result of his confounding our writer with C. Marius Victorinus Afer,
a .Roman rhetorician of the fourth century. Victorinus of Pettau
was probably a Greek by birth4, though, so far as is known, he
wrote only in Latin. He left commentaries on the first three books
of-" the Pentateuch, on Ecclesiastes and the Canticle of canticles,
Isaias, Ezechiel and Habacuc, St. Matthew and the Apocalypse, also
&~WQj&J3ldversum omnes haereses*. These works do not exhibit
either a cultivated Latin style or extensive erudition6. In his exegesis
Victorinus is a faithful disciple of Origen, though he gives proof of
independence and good judgment7. Of his exegetical labors only
the commentary on the Apocalypse is known to us; as early as
the sixteenth century it was edited in two recensions. Though the
shorter recension is the basis of the larger one, it is not itself the
original text, but only a revision of the same by St. Jerome. The con
clusion of this commentary, repudiated by Jerome because of its
decidedly Chiliastic doctrine, was re-discovered in 1895 by Haussleiter.
Gave discovered in 1688 a Tractatus Victor ini de fabrica mundi. It
may:be, the work of our Victorinus, but if so it belongs neither to
the commentary on Genesis nor to that on the Apocalypse. The
work -Adversum omnes haereses has been identified , but wrongly,
with fosyL&hcllus adversus omnes haereses printed with the works
of Tertullian (§ 50, 8).

y. de Launoy , De Victorino episc. et mart, diss., Paris, 1653; 2: ed.
1664. Complete editions: A. Rivinus , Gotha, 1652; Gallandi, Bibl. vet.
Patr. (1768), 'iv;; -49 — 64; Mignc, PLV v. 281 — 344. The Jonger recension

1 Gctinad., De viris ill., c. 15. 2 Hier., De viris ill. ,"''€.-'74-. -'

3 Instit., i. 5 7. 4 Hier., 1. c.

5 Hier:, • 1. c. ; Transl. horn. Orig. in Luc., praef.

d Hier., Ep. 58, 10; 70, 5. 7 Ib., 61, 2; 84, 7.

15*

228 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

of the commentary on the Apocalypse is in Gallandi and Migne, also in
the Bibliotheca Casinensis (1894), v. i, Floril. 1—21; the shorter one
e. g. in Max. Bibl. vet. Patr., Lyons, 1677, iii. 414—421. On the Chili-
astic conclusion see J. Haussleiter, in Theol. Literaturblatt (1895), xvi. 193
to 199, and Zeitschr. fur kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben (1886), vii.
239 — 257; cf. Haussleiter, Der Aufbau der altchristl. Liter., Berlin, 1898,
pp ^ — 37 ; Beitrage zur Wiirdigung der Offenbarung des Johannes und
ihres altesten lateinischen Auslegers Victorinus von Pettau, Greifswald, 1900.
For the De fabrica mundi with copious annotationes cf. Routh , Reliquiae
sacrae, 2. ed., iii. 451 — 483. In general see Preuschen, in Harnack, Gesch.
d. altchristl. Liter., i. 731 — 735. The De monogram-mate edited by G. Morin,
in Revue Benedictine (1903), xx. 225 — 226, is by some connected with
St. Jerome's revision of the commentary on the Apocalypse. G. Mercati
published from an Ambrosian codex, and annotated, some fragments of a
Latin commentary on Mt. xxiv., by an anonymous Chiliast, very probably
Victorinus of Pettau. G. Mercati, Varia sacra (Studi e Testi n), Rome,
1903, pp. 3 — 49; C. H. Turner, An Exegetical Fragment of the Third
Century, in Journal of Theol. Studies (1904), v. 218; A. Souter , The
authorship of the Mercati-Turner Anecdoton, in Journal of Theol. Studies
(1904), v. 608 — 621; Dom G. Morin, Notes sur Victorin du Pettau, in
Journal of Theol. Studies (1906), vii. 456 — 459.

2. RETICIUS OF AUTUN. - - Reticius, in the reign of Constantine
bishop of Augustodunum (Autun), the city of the Aedui, was highly
esteemed by all his contemporaries in Gaul. He wrote a commentary
on the Canticle of canticles and a large work against Novatian 1. While
the diction of the commentary was choice and pleasing, it contained
many singular and foolish opinions2. It is perhaps in the work
against Novatian that St. Augustine found the remark of Reticius
on baptism frequently cited by him3.

Histoire litteraire de la France, Paris, 1733, i. 2, 59 — 63. Acta SS. Jul.,
Venice, 1748, iv. 587 — 589; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Liter., i. 751 f.

APPENDIX.

§ 59. The Acts of the Martyrs.

i. PRELIMINARY REMARK. - - Narratives of martyrdom have at
all times specially fascinated the hearts of the faithful. It was custo
mary, at a very early date, to celebrate with a liturgical service the
anniversary of the martyr's death4; it was also customary on such
occasions to read to the Christian community a narrative of the
events that culminated in so glorious a sacrifice5. In the first
quarter of the fourth century Eusebius made a collection of ancient
«Acts of the martyrs» now known to us only by quotations6. Those
accounts of the earliest Christian martyrdoms which have reached us

1 Hier., De viris ill., c. 82. 2 flier., Ep. 37; cf. Ep. 5, 2.

Aug., Contra lulian, i. 3, 7 ; Opus imperfectum contra lulianum, i. 55.

Mart. S. Polyc., c. 18, 3. 5 Acta SS. Perp. et Felic., cc. i 21.

6 Eus., Hist, eccl., iv. 15, 47; v., prooem., 2, al.

§ 59- THE ACTS OF THE MARTYRS. 22Q

may be divided into three groups. Some are official documents,
records (acta, gesta) made by the notaries of the civil court, but
handed down in a form calculated to edify the Christian reader.
The second group is made up of the narratives of those who saw
and heard the details of the martyr's death (passiones). They are
lacking in official authenticity, but merit the closest attention of the
historian. The third group is composed of accounts of martyrdom,
put together at a later period, some of them enlarging partly and
partly ornamenting the original story, while others are purely literary
figments. We mention here only such very ancient Acta as have
always been held to be genuine and trustworthy.

The collections of Lives of saints and Acts of martyrs published by
B.Mombritius (about 1476 at Milan), by AL Lipomanus (1551 — 1560 at Venice
and Rome), and by L. Surius (Cologne, 1570 — 1575, and often since) were
all surpassed by the Acta Sanctorum of the Jesuit J, Bolland (f 1665),
and his colleagues known as the Bollandists. This noble enterprise has
reached its sixtieth volume, and is not yet complete. Since 1882 it is sup
plemented by a periodical publication, the Analecta Bollandiana. Cf. Biblio-
theca hagiographica graeca seu elenchus vitarum sanctorum graece typis
impressarum, edd. Hagiographi Bollandiani , Brussels, 1895. Bibliotheca
hagiographica latina antiquae et mediae aetatis, edd. Socii Bollandiani, Brus
sels, 1898 ff. (now complete in two volumes and a supplement 1898 — 1899,
1900 — 1901). A compendious translation, and a continuation «Les Petits
Bollandistes« which is complete (seventeen volumes, with Appendix in three
volumes) has been published, Paris, 1888. A critical sifting of the Acts of
the martyrs of the first four centuries was undertaken by the Benedictine
Th. Ruinart: Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta, Paris, 1689 ; 2. ed.,
Amsterdam, 1713; often reprinted, e. g. Ratisbon, 1859. ~~ E. Le Blant,
Les Actes des martyrs, in Memoires de 1'Inst. Nat. de France, Acad. des
inscriptions et belles-lettres (1883), xxx. 2, 57 — 347. K. J. Neumann, Der
romische Staat und die allgmeine Kirche bis auf Diokletian, Leipzig,, 1890,
i. 274 — 331 : «Zur Kritik der Acta Sanctorum». Preuschen } in Harnack,
Geschichte der altchristl. Literatur, i. 807 — 834. — H. Achelis, Die Martyro-
logien, ihre Geschichte und ihr Wert (Abhandlungen der kgl. Gesellsch.
der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, Berlin, 1900). O. v. Gebhardt, Acta marty
rum selecta. Ausgewahlte Martyrerakten und andere Urkunden aus der
Verfolgungszeit der christlichen Kirche, Berlin, 1902. R. Knopf, Aus
gewahlte Martyrerakten, Tiibingen and Leipzig, 1901 (Sammlung ausgewahlter
kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften , ed. by Kruger,
series ii. 2). H. Leclerq, Les martyrs. Recueil des pieces authentiques sur
les martyrs depuis Forigine du Christianisme jusqu'au xxe siecle, Paris, 1902
to 1904. i— iii. B. Alasia, Atti autentici di alcuni santi martiri scelti e
tradotti, 2 voll., Torino, 1863.

2. MARTYRIUM S. POLYCARPI. --The oldest Acts that we possess
are found in the encyclical letter of the Church of Smyrna concerning
the martyrdom, at the age of eighty-six, of its bishop Polycarp. He
suffered with other Christians of Smyrna, February 23., 155. The
narrative is so straightforward, lively and emotional that there can
be no suspicion of forgery. Eusebius incorporated the greater part
of it (cc. 8 — 19, i) in his Church History (iv. 15). It was composed

230

FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

before the first anniversary of the death of Polycarp (c. 18, 3). In
the manuscripts the original text (cc. 1 — 20) has been enriched with
additions (cc. 21 — 22) by later hands. An ancient Latin version has
also reached us, but is paraphrastic and carelessly executed.

y. Ussher was the first to publish the Greek text, London, 1647. It is
best edited in the recent editions of the Letter to the Philippians of St. Poly-
carp by Zahn , Leipzig, 1876; Funk y Tubingen, 1878 1887 1902 (in the
last edition a Jerusalem Codex S. Sepulchri was first used) ; Lightfoot,
London, 1885 1889 (cf. § 10, 2), and v. Gebhardt, Acta etc. There is
also in Zahri s edition a new recension of the ancient Latin version; cf.
A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius, Leipzig, 1878, pp. 75 — 90. For the
letter itself see E. Egli, Altchristliche Studien, Zurich, 1887, pp. 61 — 79.

3. ACTA SS. CARPI, PAPYLI ET AGATHONICES. — 111 the reign of
Marcus Aurelius (161 — 180), very probably while Lucius Verus was
still his colleague (161 — 169), Carpus, bishop ofThyatira, and Papylus,
deacon of Thyatira (?), were condemned to the stake, after a steadfast
confession of their faith. A Christian woman, Agathonice, who stood
by, threw herself voluntarily into the flames. The narrative is very
simple and touching, and was evidently composed by an eye-witness.
It is also mentioned by Eusebius 1. A longer recension that goes
back to Simeon Metaphrastes in the tenth century wrongly places
the martyrdom in the time of Decius.

The longer recension is in Migne, PG., cxv. 105 — 126. The original
text was first published by B. Aube from a twelfth-century (?) manuscript,
in Revue archeologique , new series (1881), xlii. 348 — 360, and again in
1'Eglise et 1'Etat dans la seconde moitie du III6 siecle, Paris, 1885, pp. 499
to 506. A new edition of the same manuscript with commentary by Harnack
is to be found in Texte und Untersuchungen (1888), hi. 3 — 4 433 — 466;
and another edition was made by v. Gebhardt, Acta etc.

4. ACTA SS. JUSTINI ET SOCIORUM. — Between 163 and 167 the
Apologist Justin and six other Christians were cast into prison at
Rome, because of their Christian faith, by order of Junius Rusticus,
prefect of the City; they were scourged and beheaded. Apart from
the beginning and the end, these brief acts, apparently unknown to
Eusebius, are a copy of the official records.

The Greek text was first published in the Acta Sanctorum Jim., Ant
werp, 1695, Venice, 1741, i. 20—21; later among the works 'of Justin,
in Migne, PG., vi. 1565 — 1572; cf. 1795 f., and better in v. Otto, Corpus
apol. Christ., Jena, 1879, "i. 3, 266—279; <* xlvi— 1; also in 7*. Gebhardt,
Acta etc. P. Franchi de' Cavalier i , Note agiografiche. I: Gli Atti del
martirio di S. Ariadne. II: Gli Atti di S. Giustino, in Studi e Testi, Rome,
1902, viii.

5. EPISTOLA ECCLESIARUM VIENNENSIS ET LUGDUNENSIS. - - In
the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (177—178) the Christian

1 Ens., Hist, eccl., iv. 15, 48.

§ 59- THE ACTS OF THE MARTYRS. 231

community of Lyons was tried by a severe persecution 1. When its
fury had been spent, the Christians of Lyons and Vienne sent to the
brethren in Asia Minor a minute and picturesque narrative of the
terrible events they had survived. Lengthy fragments, all too brief
to satisfy our curiosity, have been saved for us in the Church History
of Eusebius (v. I — 4).

These fragments may also be found in Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, 2. ed.,
Oxford, 1846, i. 293 — 371, and in v. Gebhardt , Acta etc. -- O. HirscJi-
feld, Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Lugdunum vor Konstantin, in
Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preussischen Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlin, 1895,
381—409.

6. ACTA MARTYRUM SCILITANORUM. - The first fruits of the
martyrs of Africa were twelve men and women of Scili in Numidia.
They appeared before the proconsul, P. Vigellius Saturninus, at Carthage
July 17., 1 80, and were condemned as Christians to die by de
capitation. Their Acts have reached us in three Latin and one Greek
recension. The shortest of the Latin texts offers the substance of the
court-records of the trial, while the other two give evidence of later
changes and additions. The Greek text is a version of the Latin.

For the three Latin recensions cf. Ruinart, 1. c. (§ 59, i), 2. ed., pp. 84
to 89, the shortest and oldest one is given there in fragmentary condition.
H. Usener first published the Greek text, in Index Schol. Bonn, per menses
aest. a. 1881. All previously (to 1881) known texts are printed by B. Aube,
Etude sur im nouveati texte des Actes des martyrs Scillitains, Paris, 1881.
The shortest and oldest Latin text is found complete, in Analecta Bolland.
(1889), viii. 5 — 8; cf. (1897), xvi. 64 f. A complete collection of all re
lative texts is given by J. A. Robinson, in Texts and Studies (1891), i. 2,
104 — 121, also in v. Gebhardt, Acta etc. Cf. Neumann, 1. c. (see § 59, i),
i. 71 — 74 284 — 286; Zahn, Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons (1892), ii. 2,
992—997.

7. ACTA S. APOLLONH. — Eusebius relates in his Church History
(v. 21) that during the reign of Commodus (180 — 192) a highly
cultured and esteemed Christian of Rome, named Apollonius, was
beheaded after an eloquent defence of his faith before the praefectus
praetor io Perennis (180 — 185) and the Roman Senate. It was easy
to recognize mere conjecture in the additional details given by
St. Jerome2. Very doubtful, in particular, seemed the statement that
Apollonius had read before the Senate an excellent work (insigne
volumen) in defence of his faith. It was therefore a matter of general
surprise when Conybeare discovered (1893) an Armenian text of the
« Martyrdom of S. Apollonius the Ascetic ». Shortly after the Bol-
landists made known a Greek text of the « Martyrdom of the holy
and celebrated apostle Apollos» (sic). Both texts contain the Acts
of Apollonius as known to Eusebius, though more or less disfigured
by later changes and additions. Given the actual state of the Acts,

1 Ib., v., prooem., i. ~ De viris ill., c. 42 53; Ep. 70, 4.

232 FIRST PERIOD. FIFTH SECTION.

it is not easy to unravel with clearness the course of the trial, nor to
discern the role which fell to the Senate. The d.xo'koft.a referred to
by Eusebius must have been made up of the questions of the judge
Perennis and the replies of Apollonius. The martyr outlines broadly
the teachings of Christian faith and morality. His exposition is re
markable for its firmness and dignity as well as for the candor of
mind and the tranquillity of spirit that it reveals.

The Armenian «Martyrium» is found in the Armenian collection of
the Acts of the Martyrs published at Venice in 1874 by the Mechitarists
(i. 138 — 143). F. C. Conybeare published an English version in The Guar
dian, June 1 8., 1893, and again in his « Apology and Acts of Apollonius
and other monuments of early Christianity, London, 1894; 2. ed. 1896.
A German version by Bur char di was communicated by Harnack , in
Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preussischen Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlin, 1893,
pp. 721 — 746. The Bollandists published the Greek text of the «Mar-
tyrium» from a cod. Paris, (saec. xi vel xii), in Anal. Bolland. (1895), xiv.
284 — 294. E. Th. Klette published a new edition (with a German version
from the same Greek codex, together with Bur char dz s translation of the
Armenian text, in Texte und Untersuchungen (1897), xv. 2, 91 ff. ; Max Prinz
von Sachsen, Der heilige Martyrer Apollonius von Rom, historisch-kritische
Studie, Mainz, 1903; R. Seeberg, in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. (1893), iv. 836
to 872; Th. Mommsen y in Sitzungsber. , Berlin, 1894, pp. 497 — 503;
A. Hilgenfdd, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1894), xxxvii. 58 — 91;
(1898), xli. 185 — 250; R. Seeberg, in Theol. Literaturblatt (1900), xxi. 225 f . ;
y. Gcffckcn, Die Acta Apollonii, in Nachrichten von der kgl. Gesellsch.
der Wissensch. in Gott., phil.-hist. Kl. (1904), iii. v. Gebhardt gives in his
«Acta» the Greek text and the version of Burchardi.

8. ACTA SS. PERPETUAE ET FELICITATIS. — On March 7., 2O2 or
203, probably at Carthage in Roman Africa and not at Thuburbo,
five catechumens died for their faith. They were Vibia Perpetua,
a youthful matron of good social standing, Saturninus and Saturus,
and two slaves Felicitas and Revocatus. With the aid of the auto
graph notes left by St. Perpetua and St. Saturus an eye-witness com
posed a forcible and animated narrative of their martyrdom that
has always been looked on as the pearl of this species of literature.
We possess, in addition to the original Latin, the text of an ancient
Greek version ; a second, considerably shorter, Latin text is notably
a later excerpt, probably taken from the Greek version. While it
is true that the author or editor of these Acts belonged to the
party of the Montanists (cc. i 21) and was probably none other
than Tertullian1, there is no evidence to show that the martyrs
themselves were Montanists. As late as the fifth century these Acts
where still read at Hippo on the anniversary of the martyrs, in natali
martyrum Perpetuae et Felicitatis*.

w. For ^e ori.ginal Latin text see Ruinart , 1. c., 2. ed., pp. 90—119;
Itgne, PL., in. 13—60; cf. pp. 61—170. The shorter Latin text was

Tert., De anima, c. 55. 2 Aug ^ germ 2go_282t

§ 59' THE ACTS OF THE MARTYRS. 233

edited by B. Aube, in 1881 ; the ancient Greek version by J. R. Harris
and S. K. Gifford, in 1890. A good edition of all three texts is that of
y. A. Robinson, The Passion of St. Perpetua, Cambridge, 1901, in Texts and
Studies, i. 2. Equally good is the edition of the two longer texts by
P. Franchi de' Cavalieri , Passio Ss. Perpetuae et Felicitatis, Rome, 1896
(Romische Quartalschr., Supplement 5). In the introduction to this study
Franchi has exhibited the evidence in favor of the priority of Latin text.
A. Fillet, Les martyrs d'Afrique: Histoire de S. Perpe'tue et de ses com-
pagnons, Paris, 1885; Neumann, 1. c. , i. 171 — 176 299 f. Cf. v. Geb
hardt' s «Acta» for both Greek and Latin texts.

9. ACTA S. PIONII. — Eusebius1 has left us an account of the
martyrdom of St. Pionius and other Christians at Smyrna. The
narrative has reached us in various recensions. While Eusebius places
their martyrdom in the time of the Antonines, and more particularly
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the Acts in their present state in
dicate, with every appearance of truth, the year 250 and the reign
of Decius.

They were published by Ruinart, 2. ed., pp. 137 — 151, from an ancient
Latin version. The Greek text was made known by O. v. Gebhardt from
a cod. Ven. Marc. 359, in Archiv fiir slavische Philologie (1896), xviii.
156 — 171, and in his «Acta». He has also promised a larger edition of
this text with the Latin, Slavonic and Armenian versions. B. Aub6,
1'Eglise et 1'Etat dans la seconde moitie du III6 siecle, Paris, 1885, pp. 140
to 154. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons
(1891), iv. 271 f. y. A. F. Gregg, The Decian Persecution, Edinburgh,
1897, pp. 242 — 261 264 — 266.

10. ACTA DISPUTATIONIS S. ACHATII. — Achatius (Acacius), pro
bably bishop of Antioch in Phrygia, but not to be confounded with
Acacius, bishop of Melitene in Asia Minor, underwent an interesting
interrogatory before the consular magistrate Marcianus; after examining
the records of which Decius allowed him to go free.

The Latin text of the official records is in Ruinart, 2. ed., pp. 152 to
155. It is certainly a version from the Greek; cf. Aubt, 1. c. pp. 181 to
194, and the «Acta» of Gebhardt.

1 Hist, eccl., iv. 15, 46 — 47.

SECOND PERIOD.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH TO THE
MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH CENTURY.

FIRST SECTION.

GREEK WRITERS.

§ 60. General conspectus.

I. THE CHANGE IN THE EXTERNAL CONDITION OF THE CHURCH. -
The edict of toleration issued by the Augusti in January or February
of 313 restored peace to the Christian Church. At the same time
it was only a lame attempt at concealing the complete overthrow
of the heathen state ; there could be but one step more from toleration
to frank preference of Christianity. In 337 Constantine received the
baptism that he had long put off. His sons assumed at once a
hostile attitude towards heathenism. Julian the Apostate (361 — 363)
attempted to infuse new life into the moribund polytheism, but his
efforts only made more manifest the incompatibility between the old
religion and the exigencies of the new times. In 392 the worship
of the gods was declared high treason (crimen maiestatis) 1 ; and as
early as 423 heathenism was looked on in the East as defunct2.

During the campaign against the Persians in which he met his death,
Julian wrote three books against the Galilaeans, xorca FaXtXaitov, of which
only some fragments remain. The work began with the words: «I hold
it proper for me to expose to all men the motives which have persuaded
me that the mendacious teaching of the Galilasans is a malicious invention
of men.» Most of the extant fragments are found in the first book of the
(only partially preserved) work of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Julian
(§ 77> 3)- They have been carefully collected by K. J. Neumann, Scrip-
torum graecorum qui christianam irnpugnaverunt religionem quae super-
sunt, fasc. in, Leipzig, 1880. The same writer has also translated them
into German: Kaiser Julians Biicher gegen die Christen, Leipzig, 1880.
Cf. P. Klimek, Coniectanea in lulianum et Cyrilli Alexandrini contra ilium
libros (Dissert, inaug.) , Breslau, 1883; Th. Gollwitzer, Observationes cri-
ticae in luliani imperatoris contra Christianos libros (Dissert, inaug.),
Erlangen, 1886. For a new but small fragment see Neumann, in Theol.
Literaturzeitung (1899), pp. 298 — 304; G. Negri , L'imperatore Giuliano

1 Cod. Theodos., xvi. 10, 12. £ lb., xvi. 10, 22.

§ 6o. GENERAL CONSPECTUS. 235

1'Apostata. Studio storico, Milano, 1901 ; P. Attar d, Julien et les Chretiens:
la persecution et la polemique (third and last volume of his Julien 1'Apostat),
Paris, 1902.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINE. - - Though the
Church was now free from external oppression, she suffered all the
more from domestic enemies. Both in the East and the West she
was obliged to defend the purity of her faith against the attacks
of heresy. It is the development and determination of ecclesiastical
doctrine that lend to this epoch its distinctive character. To the
East particularly falls the special task of abstract crystallization and
speculative illustration of theological truths in their strict significance.
During a first period which closes with the Second Ecumenical
Council of Constantinople (381) the true divinity and the perfect
humanity of the Redeemer are established against Arianism , Mace-
donianism, Sabellianism and Apollinarianism. In the second period
which ends with the fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451)
the relation of the human and the divine in the God-Man is rigorously
defined to mean that the two natures are united in one person, but
without confusion and without change.

For the literary history of Arianism, Macedonianism, Sabellianism and
Apollinarianism cf. § 61.

3. THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND TENDENCIES. - - Under these
circumstances ecclesiastical science grew with great rapidity. A general
peace offered favorable opportunities for its free and varied develop
ment, while the conflict with heresy opened new sources of intellectual
growth. Within the limits of ecclesiastical theology schools and
tendencies arose that assumed more definite outlines than in earlier
times, and through assertion of their special characteristics soon
became quite opposed one to another. It is quite easy to distinguish
at once three such tendencies. The Neo-Alexandrine school,
having freed itself from the subordinationist errors of Origen in
his Trinitarian teaching, continues to follow, along new paths, the
impulse of its great master. It aims at a speculative knowledge of
the truths already grasped by faith, but acknowledges expressly
that the Pistis (Faith) is the immovable norm of all true Gnosis
(Knowledge). The head of this new school is Athanasius ; its most
brilliant disciples are the three* Cappadocians : Basil the Great, Gre
gory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. It is true that Gregory of
Nyssa defends the Origenistic Apocatastasis, while somewhat later Didy-
inus the Blind and Evagrius Ponticus, also Origenists, maintained
both the pre-existence of souls and the Apocatastasis; both were
condemned. Synesius of Cyrene can become a Christian bishop,
yet remains a Hellene «from the tip of his toe to the crown of his
head». Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, becomes heir to both the
office and the influence of an Athanasius. The Antiochene school

236 SECOND PERIOD. FIRST SECTION.

continues to oppose the main tendency of the Alexandrine, and by
reason of its activity in the interpretation of Scripture is known as
the exegetical school. It beholds in the allegorical interpretation of the
Scripture, as taught with predilection by the Alexandrine, the deadly
enemy of all sane exegesis and it lays great stress on an objective, i. e.
historico-grammatical, rendering of the text. It follows with apprehen
sive criticism the flight of Alexandrine speculation. Instead of depth
and warmth of sentiment the Antiochene offers an extremely sober
intellectual attitude, quite hostile to all extravagance of thought. The
founder of this school is the martyr Lucian (§ 44, 3), the teacher
of Arius. Its best-known representatives are Diodorus of Tarsus,
St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Polychronius, and
Theodoret of Cyrus. By reason of their rationalizing tendencies, most
of them, particularly Theodore of Mopsuestia, came into conflict with
the traditional teachings of the Church. Precisely at the height of
its fame (370 — 450) almost the entire school was Nestorian in doc
trine. Indeed, the struggle between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius
was really the hostile embrace of the Alexandrine and Antiochene
tendencies. Another intellectual movement is traceable in the fourth
century and may be described as an excessive Traditionalism. It is
first tangible in the Anti-Origenistic troubles, and later on rejected
all scientific knowledge and criticism. As early as the third century
some writers, notably Methodius of Tyre, had protested with justice
against certain theses of Origen. However the fourth-century re
action against that master's influence, as headed by Epiphanius, was
more a matter of personal interests than of ecclesiastical and scientific
opposition, and not unfrequently made use of very unworthy means.
These Origenistic controversies are the first herald of the crisis on
which Greek theology was entering - - after the middle of the fifth
century its vitality begins to ebb and weaken.

C. Hornung, Schola Antiochena de S. Scripturae interpretatione quo-
nam modo sit merita, Neustadt, 1864; H. Kihn , Die Bedeutung der anti-
ochenischen Schule auf dem exegetischen Gebiete, nebst einer Abhandlung
liber die altesten christlichen Schulen, Weissenburg, 1866; Ph. Hergenrother ,
Die antiochenische Schule und ihre Bedeutung auf exegetischem Gebiete,
Wurzburg, 1866.

4. ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE. —"During this period ecclesiastical
literature reaches its highest standard of perfection. In almost every
department a tireless activity reigns; fields hitherto unworked are
now cultivated with zeal. -- Apologetics. Apologetic literature con
forms to the changed conditions and assumes a new character. It
was usually only in self-defence that the earlier apologists had made
positive attacks on heathenism; henceforth all the apologies for
Christianity take up a polemical attitude. The defenders of the new
religion against the attacks of Julian are Gregory of Nazianzus, John

§ 60. GENERAL CONSPECTUS. 237

Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Philippus Sidetes ; against the
writings of Porphyrius, Eusebius of Caesarea, the younger Apollinaris
and Macarius Magnes ; Eusebius also enters the arena against Hierocles
(or rather Philostratus). The apologies with more general tendency
of Eusebius, Athanasius and Theodoretus are of use rather in attack
than in defence. Specially anti-Jewish works were composed by Gre
gory of Nyssa (?), Diodorus of Tarsus, and John Chrysostom. Numerous
champions arose against the rapid and widespread growth of the
system of the Persian Mani (f about 277), which propagated under
a Christian garb ideas that were essentially Persian dualism, with
its two kingdoms of light and darkness and their corresponding series
of aeons. Polemics and Systematic Theology. The doctrinal

writings are mostly occupied with the burning questions of the time,
and are usually strictly polemical in character. In the fourth century
the principal opponents of heresy are Eusebius of Caesarea, Atha
nasius, the three Cappadocians (Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great,
and Gregory of Nyssa), Didymus the Blind and Epiphanius; in the
fifth century Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus are most
prominent. The « Epitome of Divine Teachings », #etW doffidTcov
sxtTO/jty, added by Theodoret to his « Compendium of Heretical
Fables » is a noteworthy attempt at a systematic theology. Special
points of doctrine were treated in a markedly positive manner by
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa , and Epiphanius. - - Biblical
Theology. No attention was paid to textual criticism. Epiphanius alone
was acquainted with Hebrew ; he also made remarkable progress in the
department of introductory sciences or biblical antiquities, though it had
been cultivated before him by Eusebius of Caesarea. Gregory of Nyssa
undertook occasionally to illustrate and defend the hermeneutical prin
ciples of the Neo-Alexandrines, while Diodorus of Tarsus and Theo
dore of Mopsuestia upheld the principles of the Antiochene school.
The work of Adrianus, entitled « Introduction to the Sacred Scrip
tures », may be considered as an Antiochene manual of Hermeneutics.
In Christian circles, outside of Antioch and its territory, the alle
gorizing method maintained its supremacy, and wras represented by
such men as Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa,
Didymus the Blind, and Cyril of Alexandria. On the other hand,
the writers of the Antiochene school were remarkable for their lite
rary productiveness; the commentaries of Theodoret of Cyrus exhibit
the highest degree of perfection, both in form and contents, although
the homilies of John Chrysostom are not inferior as specimens of
exegetical skill. - - Historical TJieology. Church History, unknown
to the first three centuries, reached a very high standard. The
creator of this science is Eusebius of Caesarea. His labors were
continued by Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. The Eunomian Philo-
storgius wrote a history of the Church, in the interests of Arianism.

338 SECOND"PERIOD." FIRST SECTION.

Other ecclesiastical histories written in this period have been lost,
e. g. those of Philippus Sidetes, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Timotheus
of Berytus and Sabinus of Heraclea. The latter's work was the first
known history of the " Councils. Histories of heresy were publish

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Patrology : the lives and works of the fathers of the church"

See other formats